• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

Just to be sociable, I'm going to agree with you that the universe was created by a creator.

So what? What useful information does this impart? How, if at all, do the daily worries of my life change in any way? What importance does it have that some creator made the universe?

Or, in keeping with the same line of reasoning, what makes the creator a god in any other sense of the word? One of Buddha's initial attempts to define God was in terms of practical omnipotence -- "God is someone who can do anything he wants." A created universe is not evidence of an ability to do anything the creator wants, even if we jump through all of Buddha's pseudo-deductive hoops and grant him his speculative final attribution. Doing one thing that is beyond the ability of another being (let's say, me) remains a relativist argument. What does Popper have to say about that? What evidence or deduction falsifies the possibility that God can have created the universe, but can do no more than that? Or didn't vanish after the instant of creation? We can still have a magical creator God, and that doesn't suddenly validate all the superstitious clap-trap that arose since.

This is either old Christian philosophical twaddle which was undone a long time ago, or else it's just the latest rebaking of the central fallacy of Intelligent Design.
 
Buddha's made himself very clear, I've reviewed the transcript, I came back I said 'what's going on?' So I got a transcript and reviewed it, I actually went out and I looked at a post of an answer that he gave and I realise there is a need for some clarification. It should have been obvious, I thought it was obvious but just in case I would like to clarify, in a key sentence in his remarks he said 'would' when it should have been 'wouldn't', so just to repeat it, he said he wouldn't be providing proof of god's existence in this thread, it's sort of a double negative waste of time.

No clue son. Everybody says so. No clue son.
 
A created universe is not evidence of an ability to do anything the creator wants

Yeah, I could envision a being that could create the universe (for example, in the form that the universe was in at the moment of the big bang) but can't pour a bowl of cereal without making a mess.

ME: "Hey Nuuk'ta, can you get me some Fruity Pebbles?"
NUUK'TA: *creates a tiny, massively dense point in the kitchen that explodes into a universe's worth of matter and antimatter*
ME: "Damn it, Nuuk'ta, not AGAIN!"
 
The Norseman

With regard my earlier comments in this thread about your posts, I'd like to add one more thing.

Get Stuck In!:degrin:
Thanks! (I'm not sure of the appropriate response here due to the unfamiliar idiom, but I'll do my best!)



Or, in keeping with the same line of reasoning, what makes the creator a god in any other sense of the word? One of Buddha's initial attempts to define God was in terms of practical omnipotence -- "God is someone who can do anything he wants." A created universe is not evidence of an ability to do anything the creator wants, even if we jump through all of Buddha's pseudo-deductive hoops and grant him his speculative final attribution. Doing one thing that is beyond the ability of another being (let's say, me) remains a relativist argument. What does Popper have to say about that? What evidence or deduction falsifies the possibility that God can have created the universe, but can do no more than that? Or didn't vanish after the instant of creation? We can still have a magical creator God, and that doesn't suddenly validate all the superstitious clap-trap that arose since.

This is either old Christian philosophical twaddle which was undone a long time ago, or else it's just the latest rebaking of the central fallacy of Intelligent Design.

As I mentioned earlier, in order to have evidence of any sort of supernatural event, we must first rule out every possible natural cause; for even one unknown natural cause could be the case. In order for us to rule out every possible natural cause, we must then know every natural cause. This then requires us to have all knowledge.

Therefore, we must be supernatural in order to detect whether or not something is supernaturally caused. Since we do not have all knowledge, nothing supernatural exists.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I could envision a being that could create the universe (for example, in the form that the universe was in at the moment of the big bang) but can't pour a bowl of cereal without making a mess.

ME: "Hey Nuuk'ta, can you get me some Fruity Pebbles?"
NUUK'TA: *creates a tiny, massively dense point in the kitchen that explodes into a universe's worth of matter and antimatter*
ME: "Damn it, Nuuk'ta, not AGAIN!"


I like to imagine that our universe is the result of an industrial process in another, greater, universe. The equivalent of the heat in a spot weld on a production line and a super dimensional blue collar worker is eating his transdimensional mega sandwich, picking his nose and scratching his butt while he awaits the entropy death of our universe so he can chip off the slag and pass the part on to the next station on the production line. Little knowing that he is worshiped as all present, all knowing and all powerful by beings so tiny that even their galaxy is submicroscopic to him.

(Note: This may not be an accurate reflection of current views in cosmology, or theology either but who gives a monkeys what they think?!)
 
Indeed. My understanding of positivism might be naive, but it says that if something can't be verified it can't be considered knowledge. But that has nothing to do with its actual truth value.
If one can't produce what would count as evidence for it, then it's a meaningless claim.

I tend to think there should also be an account of evidence against it, but I'm not sure that's part of the story.

Now, if we keep seeing further and further into the universe, that's some evidence of an infinitely old universe, but it wouldn't be conclusive. I'm not positive whether that hypothesis counts as meaningless.
 
I'm not sure of the appropriate response here due to the unfamiliar idiom, but I'll do my best

Get Him!
Sic Him!
Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!
Take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!
Go geddim Champ!

Pick one or more from the above. I have my popcorn.
 
As I promised, I am going to present a proof that someone created the Universe. But before doing that I am going to state my philosophical position.

I am a positivist. Being one, I reject several philosophical systems including idealism, realism, scientific realism and the Popper doctrine (he called it "deductivism"). Non-positivists might reject my proof; for example, it is not acceptable to the scientific realists and to the followers of the Popper doctrine.

From the positivist's point of view a theory or a statement based on never-ending experiment is false (scientific realists hold the opposite point of view). For example, the statement "The laws of physics will always remain in their current form" is false.

Also, for the positivist a theory based on assumption that could not be proved or disproved is false. Scientific realists see thing differently -- for them such theory could be correct.

There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it. Not everyone accepts this rule -- Popper said that the third remaining statement must be falsifiable in order to be true. But the positivists reject Popper's idea of falsifiability (Popper rejected positivism in return).

Now, the proof itself. There are three contradictory statements:
1). The universe was not created, it always existed.
2).The universe came to be by itself, as a result of some process (quantum fluctuation, maybe)
3).Someone produced the universe.

I'll start with the first statement. Suppose you met someone who claims to be as old as the universe (obviously that person is not the Creator). He might be telling the truth or he might be a liar. However, his past is irrelevant to his claim. Naturally you would ask him what kind of evidence does he have to prove that the universe always existed. The best possible evidence would be a videotape showing all stages of the universe's development. Whether the tape is authentic or it is a fake is irrelevant -- it is of infinite length and it cannot be reviewed in its entirety. Being unverifiable, this statement is false.

Moving on to the second statement. Suppose you met an observer who came to be at the same time the universe was produced, as he claims. He also has a videotape showing the process of creation and further evolution of the universe. From the positivist's point of view this is an ideal scenario -- we have an Observer! But his account of events could be incomplete -- he might have been created after the universe had been produced, but he has no knowledge of this sequence of events. The authenticity of his videotape is irrelevant. His testimony neither proves nor disproves that the universe produced itself. For a positivist his claim is false. However, a person who subscribes to scientific realism might be willing to accept his testimony. Everything depends on the individual's personal views.

The only remaining possibility is that the universe was created by someone. Of course, a person who says that he is the Creator is, most likely, an impostor. But his sincerity or lack of it doesn't matter as far as my logical deduction goes.

It doesn't follow from my presentation that there is only one Creator; as someone noted, there might be billions of Creators. A separate proof is needed to show that the Creator is unique.

I have said nothing about the Creator's identity. He (they) could be god of the Bible, god Brahma, Adi-Buddha, Oden, etc.
Oh dear.
 
Hmmm....I could be wrong but those other books on the list appear to be by different authors that happen to have the same surname as the OP. The biographical info is different with the other authors.

There you go, researching things again. :) Thank you for pointing that out to me.

I suspect you have now done more research into the identity of the author than the author did into Evolution before writing that book.
 
It really is weird how much religious apologetics, even non-Christian apologetics, really does seem to operate as if Aquinas created these epic, unbeatable proofs and just dropped the mic for all eternity.

It's been a long time since I heard any argument for God that wasn't some vague variation on his nonsense.

It just gets worse.
 
I suspect you have now done more research into the identity of the author than the author did into Evolution before writing that book.

Haha.........It did take about a minute which is much longer than it takes to figure out why early humans domesticated wolves/dogs instead of bears. :D
 
Get Him!
Sic Him!
Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!
Take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!
Go geddim Champ!

Pick one or more from the above. I have my popcorn.
:D Okay, here goes!


Buddha's system of logic is irrelevant; the only important thing is he affirms that logic is a necessary part of the universe. He must, as that's exactly what a proof is — it is a reliance on the structure of logic.

Without logic, the universe would be illogical and therefore, nothing would be reliable. The sun may not rise the next day; he could fart a literal frog accompanied by pink bubbles or a burning bush can talk with any handy passersby about the weather. There would be no scientific laws as we understand them; gravity wouldn't function and nothing would be consistent.

So —

1. Logic is necessary.
2. If a Creator is true, then divine creation is true.
3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to Creator's act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary.
4. If a Creator is true, then Logic cannot be necessary.

Therefore, a Creator is false.
 
:D Okay, here goes!


Buddha's system of logic is irrelevant; the only important thing is he affirms that logic is a necessary part of the universe. He must, as that's exactly what a proof is — it is a reliance on the structure of logic.

Without logic, the universe would be illogical and therefore, nothing would be reliable. The sun may not rise the next day; he could fart a literal frog accompanied by pink bubbles or a burning bush can talk with any handy passersby about the weather. There would be no scientific laws as we understand them; gravity wouldn't function and nothing would be consistent.

So —

1. Logic is necessary.
2. If a Creator is true, then divine creation is true.
3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to Creator's act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary.
4. If a Creator is true, then Logic cannot be necessary.

Therefore, a Creator is false.
To be fair, many don't regard logic as part of the domain of omnipotence.

Eta: nor are the scientific laws regarded as a part of deductive logic.
 
Last edited:
Buddha, either positivists are a special brand of idiot, or you have very badly misrepresented their position. Your positivist "proof" is so full of flaws that it's hard to imagine how you could possibly have come up with it.
 
So —

1. Logic is necessary.
2. If a Creator is true, then divine creation is true.
3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to Creator's act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary.
4. If a Creator is true, then Logic cannot be necessary.

Therefore, a Creator is false.


I bet Buddha will suffer an attack of selectiveness born from necessity and he will only reply to this.
 
Buddha did not provide the proof originally promised. However, the same basic template can also be used to prove the existence of God.

Here are two mutually exclusive possibilities:

1) God does not exist
2) God exists

The first cannot be definitively shown to be true and is therefore false. As a consequence the second must be true. God exists! QED
 
Buddha did not provide the proof originally promised. However, the same basic template can also be used to prove the existence of God.

Here are two mutually exclusive possibilities:

1) God does not exist
2) God exists

The first cannot be definitively shown to be true and is therefore false. As a consequence the second must be true. God exists! QED
Totally follows from his position and is much simpler.
 

Back
Top Bottom