I can prove God Exists, is that a problem?

160 posts / 0 new

Let me summarize your god-proof based on the rather loose formulation you have given.

1) It's an analogy. You claim that every object we can check up on has been created. Therefore, we should assume as much for the universe.

The first problem is that an analogy is not a sound argument. A second problem is that particles can pop into existence without any apparent creator. (Check out quantum mechanics.) A third problem is that the universe appears to have zero net energy, so it is not entirely clear that any agent is needed for its "creation." A fourth problem is that physical, empty space may be as close to nothing as nature can get. Therefore, some form of it would have always existed. A fifth problem is your assumption that time behaves in a linear, Newtonian way. That assumption is plainly wrong and the true nature of time may allow no time at all before the Big Bang, meaning no time for any agent or force to act.

Looking at the analogy itself, we start by observing that every object we find in the universe (if we overlook quantum mechanics) originated by a transformation of pre-existing matter and energy, a transformation that does not necessarily involve intelligence. Applying that analogy to the universe, we get a universe that originated from pre-existing matter and energy, a transformation that does not necessarily involve intelligence.

I could almost go with that, except that it would be an error to say that matter was present at the start of the Big Bang. Hydrogen, helium, and a touch of lithium were created by the Big Bang. Elements like carbon, oxygen, sulfur, an iron were created inside stars and scattered in part by novas. Heavier elements like gold and platinum came out of supernovas as has recently been observed.

Sorry, I just don't see any proof of God here! You were mistaken, which is not surprising since such an easy idea would have been all over the place had it really worked.

Let me summarize your god-proof based on the rather loose formulation you have given.

1) It's an analogy. You claim that every object we can check up on has been created. Therefore, we should assume as much for the universe.

The first problem is that an analogy is not a sound argument. A second problem is that particles can pop into existence without any apparent creator. (Check out quantum mechanics.) A third problem is that the universe appears to have zero net energy, so it is not entirely clear that any agent is needed for its "creation." A fourth problem is that physical, empty space may be as close to nothing as nature can get. Therefore, some form of it would have always existed. A fifth problem is your assumption that time behaves in a linear, Newtonian way. That assumption is plainly wrong and the true nature of time may allow no time at all before the Big Bang, meaning no time for any agent or force to act.

Looking at the analogy itself, we start by observing that every object we find in the universe (if we overlook quantum mechanics) originated by a transformation of pre-existing matter and energy, a transformation that does not necessarily involve intelligence. Applying that analogy to the universe, we get a universe that originated from pre-existing matter and energy, a transformation that does not necessarily involve intelligence.

I could almost go with that, except that it would be an error to say that matter was present at the start of the Big Bang. Hydrogen, helium, and a touch of lithium were created by the Big Bang. Elements like carbon, oxygen, sulfur, an iron were created inside stars and scattered in part by novas. Heavier elements like gold and platinum, if I remember correctly, were recently observed as products coming out of a collision of neutron stars.

Sorry, I just don't see any proof of God here! You were mistaken, which is not surprising since such an easy idea would have been all over the place had it really worked.

Sorry for the duplication. The system has been acting kind of funny tonight.

This is just the age old prime mover argument. Even if you would be right, and the existance of the universe necessitated a prime mover, the jump from that into calling it "God" is a semantic sleight of hand. All you would have proven is that there is a prime mover. Nothing else is at that point known of it. That prime mover could have created the world because it loves seeing other being suffer, for all we know.

It might as well be Zeus as Jesus, Allah or Yahweh since as you say the prime mover argument is a first cause argument, and apart from being woefully fallacious in both in its premises and conclusion, the deity tacked onto the end is pure assumption. This kind of shaky house of cards is the norm for religious apologetics of course.

Gads, I just wasted quite a bit of time skimming/reading this thread. This is about the fourth or fifth time I have done so and have yet to see Nobody prove God exists.

Hey, Nobody,

I can prove God Exists, is that a problem? I can prove God exists. Or is that really an issue among atheists? I am sincerely trying to help anyone who is seeking the Truth.

Gads, now I am yelling at Nobody.

I think I have lost my marbles...

rmfr

Just trolling. I always wonder why BS threads get so long.

@Cog Re: "I always wonder why BS threads get so long."

It's Nobody's fault, really. Although, I'm sure Somebody out there will end up blaming Someone, regardless.

@Tin-Man

Or, they'll blame Anybody for what Everybody and Somebody said Nobody did.

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.