JeromeBlack:


False! The physical universe will continue to exist forever. It may not be in the form we are used to now but it will exist.

You are assuming that something created the universe and sustains it. Even if that were true, it cannot be your God who is ignorant of science and cosmology.

The universe exists and that is all we know. So far, there has never been any cosmic evidence for your God and he/she has never helped us humans to understand the universe......therefore, I can only believe in the universe and not your nonentity of a God.

You are also assuming that the Universe will exist forever. Your assumption is correct but you clearly believe it for no reason.

As for how the Universe exists, there is no argument that something created and sustains it. That is the only way to explain both its existence and its decay.

As for whether the Creator of the Universe is my God, of course, Jesus Christ is the Creator of the Universe. But you are free to believe whatever you want about that. Just as you are free to believe in any philosophical contortions you please in this matter.

As for what we know, we know both that the Universe exists and that it was created too. It takes incredible faith to believe that it either just happened out of nothing or is self-existing.

As for God, He didn't give us the Universe to understand. He gave us the Universe to live in and make a choice about Him. The Universe is how He teaches us that He exists and will reward every choice we make about Him.

As for what you believe, that is entirely your choice. I can tell you the Truth, but I can't tell you what to believe. That is all on you.

I'm ironically lacking atheists with meaningful contributions to this thread.

One would expect atheists to be logical and what not as we have always posited on this board.

Seems the atheists on this board shy away from discussions that puts them in an uncomfortable position.

Who knows which atheist is which to tag to this thread?

DoctorAlien do you?

johnydon22:
I'm ironically lacking atheists with meaningful contributions to this thread.

One would expect atheists to be logical and what not as we have always posited on this board.

Seems the atheists on this board shy away from discussions that puts them in an uncomfortable position.

Who knows which atheist is which to tag to this thread?

Doctor Alien do you?

I don't know any, honestly

Evangkatsoulis:


Please can you show links to philosophy texts that define God as a thing that is self-existing and ultimate cause/reality?

That definition is original to me although you will find others who have used it. You could examine the links https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-religion and https://www.britannica.com/topic/prime-mover-philosophy. The second link will give you other links to examine.

Ihedinobi3:

That definition is original to me although you will find others who have used it. You could examine the links https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-religion and https://www.britannica.com/topic/prime-mover-philosophy. The second link will give you other links to examine.

Wait. The definition that God is a self-existent, creator of the universe is original to you? I need to be sure of what you mean here

johnydon22:


Again, the premise here is self- existent, you keep make logical leaps.

Something is self existent means it is uncaused and unaffected by external influence.

You jump gun and make a conclusion it implies will and sentience.

That is an unfounded assumption, probably typical to human propensity to anthropomorphication.

"The river wants to flow downhill"

You have to show how self-existence means sentient without making logical leaps and assumptions

Not quite. As I told you in response to your first objection, sentience is not a necessary assumption to make for there to be a self-existing Cause of the Universe. But the combination of the existence of the Universe and the necessity of a self-existing Cause for it leads to a necessary assumption of sentience among other things for that Cause.

johnydon22:


When you say the physical universe clearly decays, what do you mean?

Change?
Or
Diminish (in the sense it phases out of existence gradually)

Pray tell.

It declines in quality.

Rilwayne001:


Succinct!!

Thank you for your kind compliment.

Ihedinobi3:

It declines in quality.

What do you mean quality? What benchmark measures universal quality?

Ihedinobi3:

Not quite. As I told you in response to your first objection, sentience is not a necessary assumption to make for there to be a self-existing Cause of the Universe. But the combination of the existence of the Universe and the necessity of a self-existing Cause for it leads to a necessary assumption of sentience among other things for that Cause.

We are good here then.

johnydon22:
Another word play; what do you mean stability?

Unchangeability?
Order?

Unchangeability and order are both implied in that. The main concern, however, is that qualitative decline is impossible. But so is improvement.

johnydon22:
Let me introduce you to the cosmological oscillation model.

A contained system can be go through a cycle, in fact this is one of the possible end results of the present cosmological model.

If our universe is self- contained, with sufficient amount of gravitational force present, then a collapse of the system is inevitable and such collapse forms a singularity which as a raw form of energy will inevitably give rise to another inflation.

This is not me saying this is the case, this is show how a contained system can theoretically go through cycles without external influence

You seem to make bold assumptions as absolutes and base your argument on this.

This is not quite true. It is impossible for a system to undergo any change at all without external input. A closed system is necessarily stable by nature.

As for making bold assumptions, these things are basic assumptions in thermodynamics and, in fact, actual experimental science. Every speculation about changes in the universe that dispense with an external factor necessarily combine the actual undeniable observation of change in our universe with a violation of principles that have continued to hold true in science until now.

Obviously, the universe declines. That means that it does not sustain itself. If anything, it is running out of steam. It is pure conjecture and a truly unscientific one that there is an upswing waiting at the bottom of the decline.

johnydon22:
Is this thing inexistent? Or is it still part of existence?

It is neither inexistent nor "part of existence". It is ultimate reality, that is, all existence depends upon it.

johnydon22:
Wait. The definition that God is a self-existent, creator of the universe is original to you? I need to be sure of what you mean here

That means that I did not borrow it from another source. It was my own way of explaining it. Incidentally, there are other philosophers who hold the same point of view. And it is the one that makes the best sense.

johnydon22:
What do you mean quality? What benchmark measures universal quality?

Death is an obvious phenomenon in the universe. All things die. All things perish. Some expire. Some rust. Some fall to dust. In the end, all things die.

johnydon22:
We are good here then.

I hope so. But unless you know how a self-existing but insentient entity could create the Universe, the existence of the Universe necessitates sentience in its self-existing Cause.

Ihedinobi3:

Death is an obvious phenomenon in the universe. All things die. All things perish. Some expire. Some rust. Some fall to dust. In the end, all things die.

Uuuhm, these are isolated bits and as far as we know on these isolated cases, they simply change from state to another. A dead animal decomposes and becomes additional nutrient in the soil, by the way, this is inconsequential to the question.

again, tell me what you mean by universal quality. What is your benchmark for universal quality?

johnydon22:
Uuuhm, these are isolated bits and as far as we know on these isolated cases, they simply change from state to another. A dead animal decomposes and becomes additional nutrient in the soil, by the way, this is inconsequential to the question.

again, tell me what you mean by universal quality. What is your benchmark for universal quality?

In a system where there is no decline there are no dead animals that revert into nutrients in the soil. That is the benchmark. Things in a stable Universe do not die.

As for isolated bits, I think you know that they aren't. There is nothing in the Universe untouched by Death. Even stars give out and planetary systems collapse. Everything in our cosmos dies, especially here on Earth.

DoctorAlien:


If you understand that the universe is currently running out of usable energy, then you'd know that proposition 1 cannot be true. For if the universe has always been here, then it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago.

But even more than that, physicists now agree that the universe had a beginning. Even theories of "multiverses" and cyclic "universes "cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. A beginning must necessarily occur at one point.

is Usable energy the same thing as the total energy of the universe? Whether the universe is running out of usable energy or not the total emergy of the universe remains constant i.e usable energy+ unusable energy=constant. That means there was never a time there was no energyand thus never a 'time' there was no something. So I don't know how you can say the universe began to exist; it is like saying that energy began to exist.
On the other hand I think in discussions like this one should define the KEY TERMs because they are what makes or breaks your argument.
If I define universe as EVERYTHING that exists then it doesn't have a cause as that cause must first exists and by definition already part of the Universe. Methinks PHYSICISTS' definition of the UNIVERSE is limited to what physics attempts to study.

Ihedinobi3:

I hope so. But unless you know how all self-existing but insentient entity could create the Universe, the existence of the Universe necessitates sentience in its self-existing Cause.

On second thought, once the question involves Cause, sentience is unavoidable. An insentient but self-existing entity would necessarily never create anything. It would just exist alone from eternity to eternity undisturbed in its absolute perfection.

Creation, that is, the Universe demands a sentient and self-existing Creator unless one wishes to argue that a decaying Universe is by nature self-existing, but it would not be a sensible thing to do at all.

johnydon22:
I'm ironically lacking atheists with meaningful contributions to this thread.

One would expect atheists to be logical and what not as we have always posited on this board.

Seems the atheists on this board shy away from discussions that puts them in an uncomfortable position.

Who knows which atheist is which to tag to this thread?

DoctorAlien do you?

You are expecting atheists to contribute logical arguments to a topic that has it's foundation in ignorance and emotion?

Your constant need to make sense of absolute nonsense is a route you have to take yourself

Evangkatsoulis:


is Usable energy the same thing as the total energy of the universe? Whether the universe is running out of usable energy or not the total emergy of the universe remains constant i.e usable energy+ unusable energy=constant. That means there was never a time there was no energyand thus never a 'time' there was no something. So I don't know how you can say the universe began to exist; it is like saying that energy began to exist.
On the other hand I think in discussions like this one should define the KEY TERMs because they are what makes or breaks your argument.
If I define universe as EVERYTHING that exists then it doesn't have a cause as that cause must first exists and by definition already part of the Universe. Methinks PHYSICISTS' definition of the UNIVERSE is limited to what physics attempts to study.

With total energy = usable + unusable energy, I believe you're referring to the conservation of energy. However, physicists actually now assert that the universe(which of course includes energy) has a beginning. As Alexander Vilenkin put it, All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” (Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012.)

Also check out this lecture by Stephen Hawking: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

MrPresident1:


Yes o, including all the greedy hyenaic supporters of perversion and allthings degrading and debasing who masquerade themselves as Negro atheists

Including all pastors that rape church members and all church members who steal, lie, fornicate and then pray for it's forgiveness

hahn:


Including all pastors that rape church members and all church members who steal, lie, fornicate and then pray for it's forgiveness

Yes o, including all the fools who say in their hearts that there is no God

Ihedinobi3:

You are also assuming that the Universe will exist forever. Your assumption is correct but you clearly believe it for no reason.

As for how the Universe exists, there is no argument that something created and sustains it. That is the only way to explain both its existence and its decay.

As for whether the Creator of the Universe is my God, of course, Jesus Christ is the Creator of the Universe. But you are free to believe whatever you want about that. Just as you are free to believe in any philosophical contortions you please in this matter.

As for what we know, we know both that the Universe exists and that it was created too. It takes incredible faith to believe that it either just happened out of nothing or is self-existing.

As for God, He didn't give us the Universe to understand. He gave us the Universe to live in and make a choice about Him. The Universe is how He teaches us that He exists and will reward every choice we make about Him.

As for what you believe, that is entirely your choice. I can tell you the Truth, but I can't tell you what to believe. That is all on you.

@ the bold.


The pagans were very creative in creating a god for different things. A god of thunder, a god of the sea etc.

Your God should be Yahweh god of ignorance and confusion.

From your own statement in bold, God is happy when humans are ignorant. He is okay with us being ignorant about the universe.

Just like the story of Adam and Eve where Yahweh didnt want them to notice their unclothedness.


Zombie god, zombie follower.

johnydon22:
I'm ironically lacking atheists with meaningful contributions to this thread.

One would expect atheists to be logical and what not as we have always posited on this board.

Seems the atheists on this board shy away from discussions that puts them in an uncomfortable position.

Who knows which atheist is which to tag to this thread?

DoctorAlien do you?

This is what happens when you associate with funny people. You start to unconsciously copy their behaviour.

Your op is quite open to argument from many angles. People have many reasons for not accepting that God is not a reasonable conclusion. The atheists here have given different robust arguments why a creator/god is illogical.

You cannot expect people to answer things the way you want

johnydon22:


So, a theist follows same pattern of observation;

Facts: Precision of gravitational force (too weak or too strong would mean the universe as we know won't exist)

Precision of the weak nuclear force, which anything less or more means life won't exist.

What are the odds of those happening?

Conclusion; something designed this.

How is this not a conclusion since it follows the same pattern of reaching an answer through a set up observables facts?

Because he is not following where the evidence leads, he is making a leap. He also fails to take into account all of the facts. Consider that so far life is in a very low minority in this universe and considering that there are probably uncountable planets with the conditions earth finds itself, how does he arrive at design? Unless of course he is willing to concede that the designer is rather wasteful, inefficient and not very good at design.

Another analogy: You have a million naira in cash in your wardrobe. Only you knows the money is in there, only you has access to open the wardrobe. One day you take out the money and count it, you find 1 naira is missing. Do you immediately think "someone has stolen my 1 naira!" or you are more likely to think it either it fell as you took out the money or it is still in the cupboard?

One does not quickly jump to agency when the evidence does not point there or else you seem like a crazy person.

DoctorAlien:


With total energy = usable + unusable energy, I believe you're referring to the conservation of energy. However, physicists actually now assert that the universe(which of course includes energy) has a beginning. As Alexander Vilenkin put it, All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” (Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012.)

Also check out this lecture by Stephen Hawking: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

oga, physicists definition of the universe is slightly different from philosophers definition of universe. Most physicists define the universe as all existing matter and space. Some definitions include Time; others just defines it with respect to the stars, planet etc. Basically what physics tries to study in first place.

LordReed:


Because he is not following where the evidence leads, he is making a leap. He also fails to take into account all of the facts. Consider that so far life is in a very low minority in this universe and considering that there are probably uncountable planets with the conditions earth finds itself, how does he arrive at design? Unless of course he is willing to concede that the designer is rather wasteful, inefficient and not very good at design.

Another analogy: You have a million naira in cash in your wardrobe. Only you knows the money is in there, only you has access to open the wardrobe. One day you take out the money and count it, you find 1 naira is missing. Do you immediately think "someone has stolen my 1 naira!" or you are more likely to think it either it fell as you took out the money or it is still in the cupboard?

One does not quickly jump to agency when the evidence does not point there or else you seem like a crazy person.

GBAM!

Simple and short

johnydon22:
I'm ironically lacking atheists with meaningful contributions to this thread.

One would expect atheists to be logical and what not as we have always posited on this board.

Seems the atheists on this board shy away from discussions that puts them in an uncomfortable position.

Who knows which atheist is which to tag to this thread?

DoctorAlien do you?

Really? So I am wasting my time engaging you?

Evangkatsoulis:


oga, physicists definition of the universe is slightly different from philosophers definition of universe. Most physicists define the universe as all existing matter and space. Some definitions include Time; others just defines it with respect to the stars, planet etc. Basically what physics tries to study in first place.

This difficulty in agreement when time is involved, I have highlighted earlier on. What's your point though?

LordReed:


Really? So I am wasting my time engaging you?

Nope. It's a general statement, considering the question is primarily directed to atheists, only jerome and you are actually disussing anything about it.

LordReed:


Because he is not following where the evidence leads, he is making a leap.

Pray tell, how? because as far as seen here, exact same method of deriving conclusions are applied to both instances. Tell us how one is a logical leap and the other isn't?

He also fails to take into account all of the facts. Consider that so far life is in a very low minority in this universe and considering that there are probably uncountable planets with the conditions earth finds itself, how does he arrive at design? Unless of course he is willing to concede that the designer is rather wasteful, inefficient and not very good at design.

Wasteful, inefficient doesn't negate design. So, making this argument doesn't negate the fundamental premise of his argument which is design.

JeromeBlack:





This is what happens when you associate with funny people. You start to unconsciously copy their behaviour.

Your op is quite open to argument from many angles. People have many reasons for not accepting that God is not a reasonable conclusion. The atheists here have given different robust arguments why a creator/god is illogical.

You cannot expect people to answer things the way you want

Actually No. Only you and LordReed so far has been the atheists on this board.

1. I have not implied any way i expect an answer to go.

2. I have engaged both the theist and the atheists on their answers.

As far as the primary target for the question goes, there is an ironic deficiency of normal atheist representation here.

On an average thread, you could have 10 -15 but here, nope