Is god real?

[Aryan Shield]

He created laws that he can change but won't. These universal laws area unchangeable in a universe without God. These universal laws can only exist in a universe with God.
The fact that we have unchangeable laws that don't change proves God's existence in both ways.

Actually, laws can change, given a different environment.

Not the Laws; but the regional effect of those laws. Example: Time and gravity is relative to our location.

[The Archregimancy]

I was Bau, the Lady of Abundance, Patroness of Lagash, Girsu and Nimen. The whole dog thing is a long, complicated story, don't ask. I did love the Sumerians, though. It broke my heart when I had to leave for Egypt the last time, but times had changed and the civilized lords of Kiengir, the black-headed people, were no more and it was time to go.

I know; as soon as Ibbi-Sin succumbed to the Amorites, things just weren't the same - though some of us did stick it out in Ur for a few years afterwards.

Thing is, I never did understand why you were so keen on sacred temple prostitution at the time; surely that rather dubious cultural practice would have been enough to turn any woman off men for all eternity?

Oh.... hang on a second.....

<light finally dawns 4000 years on>

[Farnhamia]

Technically that isn't proof, as your hypothesis cannot be created and observed.
And surely God would have imparted information of our brothers in the sky?

And how could you know the purpose of the Bible, as it has no footnotes or a blurb?

Why should God tell us if aliens exist? There is no reason he would have to. He already knows if we shall ever meet ETs and if we will then he found it unnecessary to prep the people of the past of something they would never experience.

True the hypothesis can't be created as we don't have universe making powers. But it is the next best thing. It is pure logic. The very definition of random is something that happens without decision and has no order. A randomly created universe can't have order to it.

And what do you mean how can I know? The Bible doesn't say "The Bible: The History of the World" It says it is the word of God. It is about how to live our lives. If the authors intended it to be a history book, then they would not have bothered with morality or any of that. No Jesus parables or other verses on how we should treat each other.

Okay, sure. It's fairly obvious that, no matter what we say, you'll just weasel and wiggle your way out of it, but you're wrong. It's as simple as that.

[Aryan Shield]

Just because there could be other life out there doesn't mean that there is no God. Other life forms could be created by God as well. And we wouldn't have anything about that in the Bible because we didn't exactly have satellites or any other space technology back in the day.
The Bible is not a history book. It is not intended to be a perfect telling of history.
The one undeniable proof that there is a God or Creator is that we have unchanging laws of the universe. A randomly created universe that just happened to spring up can not have unchanging laws. There could be no cycles of life or anything.
That is one proof that can't be disproven.

That's where Chaos Theory comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[Jedi8246]

Why should God tell us if aliens exist? There is no reason he would have to. He already knows if we shall ever meet ETs and if we will then he found it unnecessary to prep the people of the past of something they would never experience.

True the hypothesis can't be created as we don't have universe making powers. But it is the next best thing. It is pure logic. The very definition of random is something that happens without decision and has no order. A randomly created universe can't have order to it.

And what do you mean how can I know? The Bible doesn't say "The Bible: The History of the World" It says it is the word of God. It is about how to live our lives. If the authors intended it to be a history book, then they would not have bothered with morality or any of that. No Jesus parables or other verses on how we should treat each other.

Okay, sure. It's fairly obvious that, no matter what we say, you'll just weasel and wiggle your way out of it, but you're wrong. It's as simple as that.

You seem to be at an impasse. You have just said that I "weasel'd" my way out of it by providing intelligent reasons but you continue to tell me I'm wrong. You have no way to prove me wrong. You could be right, but you don't have the right to just flat out say I'm wrong. You don't know if there is a God or not. You choose to believe there is not one, while I choose to believe there is one. And that is the flat and simple of it. We all will find out when we die.

[Farnhamia]

I was Bau, the Lady of Abundance, Patroness of Lagash, Girsu and Nimen. The whole dog thing is a long, complicated story, don't ask. I did love the Sumerians, though. It broke my heart when I had to leave for Egypt the last time, but times had changed and the civilized lords of Kiengir, the black-headed people, were no more and it was time to go.

I know; as soon as Ibbi-Sin succumbed to the Amorites, things just weren't the same - though some of us did stick it out in Ur for a few years afterwards.

Thing is, I never did understand why you were so keen on sacred temple prostitution at the time; surely that rather dubious cultural practice would have been enough to turn any woman off men for all eternity?

Oh.... hang on a second.....

<light finally dawns 4000 years on>

Took you long enough.

It really wasn't that, though, Arch, come on. First of all, from what I hear, Herodotus had a particularly bad time in a brothel outside Babylon (for which I have no responsibility), he ended up getting rolled for everything except his sandals. Brothels were near my temples because that's where the best health care was.

[Villerar]

What if those universal laws are the nature of the Deity? Which is the Christian response to the Eutrypho dilemma. These universal laws would then not be able to exist without God.

Also, it is a sweeping generalisation from "universal laws can exist" as in mathematical and logic facts being real to "the universe formed according to these laws". I would say that mathematics is necessary, but that physics is extremely contingent. It is easy to imagine different values for several constants that would lead to non-viable universes and I can't see a way to argue that the physical laws are necessary either. Nor do I think that maths or logic have causative powers, so these necessary laws would not cause anything, but rather limit possibilities.

Whoever was addressed with "the Intelligent Design brigade", I can happily disclose that I am not a fan of the Discovery Institute and I can think of better pastimes than calling certain organic motors irreducibly complex, though I'm not zealously offended if people do spend their time that way.

The Christian response assumes its conclusion, that God exists. You'll notice that UE said "if" a great deal in his post. I didn't take him to be making positive statements.

Yes, it is easy to imagine ways in which non-viable universes might arise. It is also easy to imagine ways in which viable but different universes might arise, in which the inhabitants might conclude that things were arranged just right for them. It's the Goldilocks Principle. Things are "just right" not because someone made them that way but because they simply are "just right" for us. If we'd somehow evolved on Mars we would declare our planet too damn hot.

Of course theism does not assume its conclusion, only nu atheists think that. There are ample arguments for theism, but that was not what I addressed.

How is it easy to imagine ways in which other viable universes arise? With other I suppose you mean different values for a modest few dozens of physical constants, not different universes with the same constants, otherwise you are using a red herring; I doubt it is disputed that a universe with the same values as ours could sustain life. When it is said that those would not be viable, this means that basically the physics would turn so fruity that you can have decent chemistry going on, the universe would collapse or other things like that.

I am not arguing from the view that life could only have developed on Earth, I simply do not know in a similar way that I do not know whether Santa Claus lives in a distant ice planet in the Virgo cluster, though can be certain that he doesn't exist on Earth, except for the man who acts like him in Rovaniemi, Finland. Instead, I am arguing from the physical constants that the physics behind the universe are contingent. Though I must admit that I think life would be very rare in the universe, but do not think this is relevant to the argument.

[Farnhamia]

Okay, sure. It's fairly obvious that, no matter what we say, you'll just weasel and wiggle your way out of it, but you're wrong. It's as simple as that.

You seem to be at an impasse. You have just said that I "weasel'd" my way out of it by providing intelligent reasons but you continue to tell me I'm wrong. You have no way to prove me wrong. You could be right, but you don't have the right to just flat out say I'm wrong. You don't know if there is a God or not. You choose to believe there is not one, while I choose to believe there is one. And that is the flat and simple of it. We all will find out when we die.

An impasse, me? Not at all, I'm quite secure in what I believe about the universe. And I certainly do have every right to tell you you're wrong, so long as you keep making statements like, "A randomly created universe can't have order to it."

[The Archregimancy]

Took you long enough.

It really wasn't that, though, Arch, come on. First of all, from what I hear, Herodotus had a particularly bad time in a brothel outside Babylon (for which I have no responsibility), he ended up getting rolled for everything except his sandals. Brothels were near my temples because that's where the best health care was.

Oh, yes.... Herodotus.

I know nothing about that particular incident; not officially anyway.

Look, this gullible Greek walks into town, believes everything you tell him about giant gold-digging ants on the Indus, and pays you in gold for the privilege...

What would you have done?

[Jedi8246]

You seem to be at an impasse. You have just said that I "weasel'd" my way out of it by providing intelligent reasons but you continue to tell me I'm wrong. You have no way to prove me wrong. You could be right, but you don't have the right to just flat out say I'm wrong. You don't know if there is a God or not. You choose to believe there is not one, while I choose to believe there is one. And that is the flat and simple of it. We all will find out when we die.

An impasse, me? Not at all, I'm quite secure in what I believe about the universe. And I certainly do have every right to tell you you're wrong, so long as you keep making statements like, "A randomly created universe can't have order to it."

Perhaps you could share one reason why anything random would have laws that don't change.

[Innsmothe]

Technically that isn't proof, as your hypothesis cannot be created and observed.
And surely God would have imparted information of our brothers in the sky?

And how could you know the purpose of the Bible, as it has no footnotes or a blurb?

Why should God tell us if aliens exist? There is no reason he would have to. He already knows if we shall ever meet ETs and if we will then he found it unnecessary to prep the people of the past of something they would never experience.

True the hypothesis can't be created as we don't have universe making powers. But it is the next best thing. It is pure logic. The very definition of random is something that happens without decision and has no order. A randomly created universe can't have order to it.

And what do you mean how can I know? The Bible doesn't say "The Bible: The History of the World" It says it is the word of God. It is about how to live our lives. If the authors intended it to be a history book, then they would not have bothered with morality or any of that. No Jesus parables or other verses on how we should treat each other.

Technically, random actions result in order. It's been proven.

[Kylarosa]

[Kylarosa]

That doesn't make sense, if we evolved om Mars somehow then we would have evolved to the environmental conditions of mars and found mars to be just right and earth too cold. Evolution is adaptation. If we don't adapt and change, we die.

[Jedi8246]

Why should God tell us if aliens exist? There is no reason he would have to. He already knows if we shall ever meet ETs and if we will then he found it unnecessary to prep the people of the past of something they would never experience.

True the hypothesis can't be created as we don't have universe making powers. But it is the next best thing. It is pure logic. The very definition of random is something that happens without decision and has no order. A randomly created universe can't have order to it.

And what do you mean how can I know? The Bible doesn't say "The Bible: The History of the World" It says it is the word of God. It is about how to live our lives. If the authors intended it to be a history book, then they would not have bothered with morality or any of that. No Jesus parables or other verses on how we should treat each other.

Technically, random actions result in order. It's been proven.

Proven how?
There is no random created object in the universe that has laws that are universal and don't change.. It is non existent.

[Villerar]

I think that is why somebody posted a link to chaos theory, the study of complex systems described by differential equations of which the outcomes highly depend on the initial values. Anyway, I generally don't think it is very useful to argue from "order", since it is a vague concept and often leads to abuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[Innsmothe]

Technically, random actions result in order. It's been proven.

Proven how?
There is no random created object in the universe that has laws that are universal and don't change.. It is non existent.

Technically the 'laws' can;t be called universal, as we have not encounter the whole universe, until we do we have to say 'They work here, but maybe not there.' Plus Chaos theory.
To exorcise absolute certainty in any field of science is the announcement of your incompetence.

[Jedi8246]

Proven how?
There is no random created object in the universe that has laws that are universal and don't change.. It is non existent.

Technically the 'laws' can;t be called universal, as we have not encounter the whole universe, until we do we have to say 'They work here, but maybe not there.' Plus Chaos theory.
To exorcise absolute certainty in any field of science is the announcement of your incompetence.

Now you are announcing your own ignorance. The laws of thermodynamics are universal and absolute. As proven by science.
Chaos theory only helps prove my idea. Here is a nice link that has a bit about chaos theory, http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm

[Innsmothe]

Technically the 'laws' can;t be called universal, as we have not encounter the whole universe, until we do we have to say 'They work here, but maybe not there.' Plus Chaos theory.
To exorcise absolute certainty in any field of science is the announcement of your incompetence.

Now you are announcing your own ignorance. The laws of thermodynamics are universal and absolute. As proven by science.
Chaos theory only helps prove my idea. Here is a nice link that has a bit about chaos theory, http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm

That's a blog, not a credited paper.

But, until we explore the entire existence, we can't actually say that.

[Jedi8246]

Now you are announcing your own ignorance. The laws of thermodynamics are universal and absolute. As proven by science.
Chaos theory only helps prove my idea. Here is a nice link that has a bit about chaos theory, http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm

That's a blog, not a credited paper.

Your point is...?
If you read through the whole thing(I hope you did, otherwise there is no point in responding) then it does not matter in which form it is published. The science is there and the proof. If you wish to double check him, then by all means look up the science.

[Jedi8246]

Now you are announcing your own ignorance. The laws of thermodynamics are universal and absolute. As proven by science.
Chaos theory only helps prove my idea. Here is a nice link that has a bit about chaos theory, http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm

That's a blog, not a credited paper.

But, until we explore the entire existence, we can't actually say that.

Sure we can. Unless you can find something that disproves it in some other part of the universe, then it is law. By your reasoning then we can't prove anything which is nonsense.

[Innsmothe]

That's a blog, not a credited paper.

But, until we explore the entire existence, we can't actually say that.

Sure we can. Unless you can find something that disproves it in some other part of the universe, then it is law. By your reasoning then we can't prove anything which is nonsense.

No, it's logical, If you cannot prove anything, new ideas spring forth at a quicker pace than in an absolutist society thus human ingenuity becomes more advanced.

[Unhealthy2]

This is the 'paradox of the stone' (or mountain in this instance).
The simple answer is when we talk about about God, we talk about what is logically possible for a being like God to do.
Therefore the phrase 'cannot lift' doesn't apply to God as it doesn't make sense for God to not be able to lift something.
Therefore, the entire paradox is rendered as a logical fallacy and we can't discuss it because we can only discuss the logically possible with any hope of attaining certainty about Him.

I'm sorry if it's badly explained, I'm not very eloquent.

In other words, you're admitting, as I believe Augustine did, that god cannot literally do anything. All-powerful is reduced to meaning "maximally powerful" instead of "able to do anything," as we see that "able to do anything" is as impossible and contradiction-laden as "the set of all sets."

In other words, the paradox of the stone has a rather poignant point to it, and that is that a system without any limitations at all is inherently self-defeating.

[Villerar]

This is the 'paradox of the stone' (or mountain in this instance).
The simple answer is when we talk about about God, we talk about what is logically possible for a being like God to do.
Therefore the phrase 'cannot lift' doesn't apply to God as it doesn't make sense for God to not be able to lift something.
Therefore, the entire paradox is rendered as a logical fallacy and we can't discuss it because we can only discuss the logically possible with any hope of attaining certainty about Him.

I'm sorry if it's badly explained, I'm not very eloquent.

In other words, you're admitting, as I believe Augustine did, that god cannot literally do anything. All-powerful is reduced to meaning "maximally powerful" instead of "able to do anything," as we see that "able to do anything" is as impossible and contradiction-laden as "the set of all sets."

In other words, the paradox of the stone has a rather poignant point to it, and that is that a system without any limitations at all is inherently self-defeating.

What does "literally doing" something that can't logically be done mean?

[Unhealthy2]

If God didn't create evil, then how would we know what is evil and what is good, what is right and wrong?

EDIT: People, this is like, A-level philosophy, paradox of the stone, problem of evil, whats next? Euthyphro's dilemna?

The paradox of the stone, as I just explained, has a rather important point. The problem of evil is EXTREMELY significant. I mean there's a reason why a lot of theologians dedicate their time ENTIRELY to theodicy. If the problem of evil were just a minor little with belief in god, there wouldn't be so much work in trying to find ways around it.

As for Euthyphro's dilemma, that's another rather important point. What it does is show that "objective" or "absolute" morality cannot come from a god. If both god AND objective morality exist, then objective morality must be independent from god or else it's not objective. Morality that's just tautologically tied to whatever god happens to do at the time is not objective or meaningful. Thus, the dilemma presents us with a choice between objective morality and divine command theory in showing us that, far from being compatible, they are irreconcilable.

[Unhealthy2]

What does "literally doing" something that can't logically be done mean?

It's not logically impossible to be able to create something that you yourself cannot lift. We do it all the time. It's called building construction. The point of the stone paradox is that no being can literally be able to do anything logically possible. It is logically possible to be able to create something you cannot lift. It is also logically possible, though probably not physically possible, to be able to lift anything. However, it is not possible to be able to lift anything AND be able to create something that you cannot lift. Hence, the ability to do anything logically possible is not itself, logically possible.