Disproofs of God.

[jeremyp]

I’m not sure I am criticising them. I’m criticising those who say it is an invalid question because by some means a state of nothingness is impossible.

That's not what they are doing though. They are pointing out some alternative possible answers to the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not what they are doing though. They are pointing out some alternative possible answers to the question.

To me there is a contributor to the thread who states that a state of nothingness is impossible although he does qualify by suggesting that is the case if one model is correct.

I think his argument only takes him to there is something rather than nothing, where we all are in fact, rather than an answer to why something and not nothing.

Those appealing to maths for infinities cannot seriously then argue against an alternative nothing.

I’m thinking of having a picture of Richard Dawkins tattooed on my arse. I can envisage it not being there. Once in position it will be more or less a permanent feature. But does that make an unsullied arsecheek an impossibility.......don’t think so.....

I call the Above the “My arse, Dawkins face” hypothesis. Of course I’ll probably never get to see it to prove it..........So i’ll Just have to sit on it.

[Outrider]

Bob’s your uncle !!!!!!! In what dimension are you looping time in again?

Time is a(at least one) dimension.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Time is a(at least one) dimension.

O.

How would you know time was looped without reference to other dimensions?

Why is it looped for billions of years and not billions of nanosecond.

[Outrider]

How would you know time was looped without reference to other dimensions?

Because you travel for a while and then you find you're somewhere you've already been.  I can travel in a straight line on Earth - no reference to up or down, left or right - and end up back where I started.

Why is it looped for billions of years and not billions of nanosecond.

Again, what's with the 'why'?  What makes you think there's a reason?  It may be that there are constraints within the proposed structure (remember this is currently all just conjecture), it may be that there is some ethereal, temporal pipe-bender out there...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you travel for a while and then you find you're somewhere you've already been.  It may be that there are constraints within the proposed structure (remember this is currently all just conjecture), it may be that there is some ethereal, temporal pipe-bender out there...

O.

Why do I not remember being here before since according to you we all have?. Could it be that moment only occurs once.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you travel for a while and then you find you're somewhere you've already been.  I can travel in a straight line on Earth - no reference to up or down, left or right - and end up back where I started.

Again, what's with the 'why'?

  It's a perfectly legitimate question for the enquiring mind but obviously not the mind that has fucked itself about by New Atheism.

[SteveH]

Most modern physicists think that there are a number of other dimensions, as well as the three familiar ones of space and one of time, that we can't directly experience.

[Stranger]

Most modern physicists think that there are a number of other dimensions, as well as the three familiar ones of space and one of time, that we can't directly experience.

Extra dimensions are an aspect of string theory but not, for example, one of its major rivals as a "theory of everything", loop quantum gravity.

[jeremyp]

Because you travel for a while and then you find you're somewhere you've already been.  I can travel in a straight line on Earth - no reference to up or down, left or right - and end up back where I started.

Sometimes it feels like time is looped on this forum. I have a very strong feeling we've been here before.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sometimes it feels like time is looped on this forum. I have a very strong feeling we've been here before.

Apparently, there's a theory for that.

[Outrider]

  It's a perfectly legitimate question for the enquiring mind but obviously not the mind that has fucked itself about by New Atheism.

It's a legitimate question to a point, but it's loaded with implicit assumptions which should probably be addressed first.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

It's a legitimate question to a point, but it's loaded with implicit assumptions which should probably be addressed first.

Quite - the trouble with the "why" question is that just gives you an infinite regress:

"Why something and not nothing?"

"God"

"OK, why God and not not God?"

"Er..."   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Outy,

Quite - the trouble with the "why" question is that just gives you an infinite regress:

"Why something and not nothing?"

"God"

"OK, why God and not not God?"

"Er,The properties of the necessary entity are more God like than non Godlike"

A necessary entity negates a need for an infinite regression which is shown for what it is.
... Dawkinsian preference.

[Stranger]

The properties of the necessary entity are more God like than non Godlike

Since you haven't even managed to explain what could possibly make something necessary, this this goes way beyond a totally baseless assertion and well into fantastical wishful thinking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Anecessary entity negates a need for an infinite regression which is shown for what it is Dawkinsian preference.

Ah, the old special pleading ploy eh? You might want to think of your notion "god" as a "necessary entity", but that doesn't get you off the hook. If you think a god was necessary for the universe, why was it necessary for there to be a universe (and therefore supposedly a god to create it) at all? Why not no god and no universe?

See - infinite regress like I told you. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ah, the old special pleading ploy eh? You might want to think of your notion "god" as a "necessary entity", but that doesn't get you off the hook. If you think a god was necessary for the universe, why was it necessary for there to be a universe (and therefore supposedly a god to create it) at all? Why not no god and no universe?

See - infinite regress like I told you.

specially pleading. I’ve agreed that necessity is an aspect of the whole of reality (minding the fallacy of division)The necessity entity I’ve conceded could even be in this universe (minding the fallacy of division). You cannot wash away necessity. If the universe contains the necessary  then there are no more explanations external to the necessity it contains. The only trouble with the universe containing the necessary is appointing time and place to it, appointing dimension to it, discriminating it from the universal shedload of contingency.

Infinitely regressed chains and heirarchies don’t actually deliver since if you actually end up getting something it has to be introduced at some point.
It isn’t necessary for there to be a universe because ultimately the contingent isn’t necessary.

[SteveH]

specially pleading. I’ve agreed that necessity is an aspect of the whole of reality (minding the fallacy of division)The necessity entity I’ve conceded could even be in this universe (minding the fallacy of division). You cannot wash away necessity. If the universe contains the necessary  then there are no more explanations external to the necessity it contains. The only trouble with the universe containing the necessary is appointing time and place to it, appointing dimension to it, discriminating it from the universal shedload of contingency.

Infinitely regressed chains and heirarchies don’t actually deliver since if you actually end up getting something it has to be introduced at some point.
It isn’t necessary for there to be a universe because ultimately the contingent isn’t necessary.

24-carat gobbledegook.

[Nearly Sane]

specially pleading. I’ve agreed that necessity is an aspect of the whole of reality (minding the fallacy of division)The necessity entity I’ve conceded could even be in this universe (minding the fallacy of division). You cannot wash away necessity. If the universe contains the necessary  then there are no more explanations external to the necessity it contains. The only trouble with the universe containing the necessary is appointing time and place to it, appointing dimension to it, discriminating it from the universal shedload of contingency.

Infinitely regressed chains and heirarchies don’t actually deliver since if you actually end up getting something it has to be introduced at some point.
It isn’t necessary for there to be a universe because ultimately the contingent isn’t necessary.

hic!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

24-carat gobbledegook.

I suppose you are going to revert to type Micawber and say that something will inevitably turn up.

[Outrider]

"Er,The properties of the necessary entity are more God like than non Godlike"

A necessary entity negates a need for an infinite regression which is shown for what it is.
... Dawkinsian preference.

Except that you haven't established that there is a necessary entity, or what any necessary properties of one would be.

All of which calls into question what you consider 'god-like' properties to be - even if there is a necessary entity for the universe I don't see any reason why consciousness would necessarily be a trait which would seem to be a requirement for a 'god'.

As to the idea that infinite regression is something dependent upon Professor Dawkins, our understanding of reality has proceeded from the idea of a chain of cause and effect for centuries before the good Professor rose to prominence; if you want to posit something that supercedes that understanding then you need a pretty solid reason to do so which so far we've not seen.

In fact, it's almost like you want to dismiss the infinite regress because of some preconceived deistic fetish for a creation myth....

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

specially pleading. I’ve agreed that necessity is an aspect of the whole of reality (minding the fallacy of division)The necessity entity I’ve conceded could even be in this universe (minding the fallacy of division). You cannot wash away necessity. If the universe contains the necessary  then there are no more explanations external to the necessity it contains. The only trouble with the universe containing the necessary is appointing time and place to it, appointing dimension to it, discriminating it from the universal shedload of contingency.

Infinitely regressed chains and heirarchies don’t actually deliver since if you actually end up getting something it has to be introduced at some point.
It isn’t necessary for there to be a universe because ultimately the contingent isn’t necessary.

See, the problem here is that there's no way to tell whether you have an idea or even (finally) an argument in your head but you're so deeply inarticulate that there's no way to know what it is, or instead whether you simply have no cogent thoughts at all so only incoherence appears when you attempt a reply.

Currently I lean toward the latter explanation for this latest dog's breakfast of a post, but I could be wrong about that.   

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps we can sum up by saying there is something which exists, because we exist.
"That which exists" is beyond human comprehension, and we may call it God, because it must be the source of all existence.
The question to ponder is the relationship between "that which exists" and us.
In our universe, there is much which exists which by its material nature is unable to ponder its existence and reasons behind existence.  It would appear that humans have an apparently unique attribute in this respect compared to other known matter in the universe.  So the question to ponder is : why are we able to contemplate our existence, and where in a material world does this attribute originate?

[Gordon]

Perhaps we can sum up by saying there is something which exists, because we exist.

Perhaps not: but it is your claim so you demonstrate it.

"That which exists" is beyond human comprehension, and we may call it God, because it must be the source of all existence.

If this thing is 'beyond human comprehension' then you clearly can say nothing meaningful about it, so it might as well not exist.

The question to ponder is the relationship between "that which exists" and us.

Which is begging the question - a fallacy.

In our universe, there is much which exists which by its material nature is unable to ponder its existence and reasons behind existence.

Who can say for sure, but you're begging the question again, so your point is pointless.
 

It would appear that humans have an apparently unique attribute in this respect compared to other known matter in the universe.

The universe is a big place, Alan, so if I were you I'd reserve judgement.

So the question to ponder is : why are we able to contemplate our existence, and where in a material world does this attribute originate?

That doesn't take much pondering Alan: it is just active biology (brains to be more precise).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that you haven't established that there is a necessary entity, or what any necessary properties of one would be.

All of which calls into question what you consider 'god-like' properties to be - even if there is a necessary entity for the universe I don't see any reason why consciousness would necessarily be a trait which would seem to be a requirement for a 'god'.

As to the idea that infinite regression is something dependent upon Professor Dawkins, our understanding of reality has proceeded from the idea of a chain of cause and effect for centuries before the good Professor rose to prominence; if you want to posit something that supercedes that understanding then you need a pretty solid reason to do so which so far we've not seen.

In fact, it's almost like you want to dismiss the infinite regress because of some preconceived deistic fetish for a creation myth....

O.

I don’t dismiss infinite regress. It exists in mathematical reality. What I tend to dismiss is the ability of an infinite regress to deliver anything physically hence my counter argument involving the hierarchy of dependence each of its members owed a fiver from its predecessor or immediately lower level.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, He is the public face of “who created God?” In fact I believe he presents it as a knock down argument. The trouble is it is not an atheist argument.

Possible replies are 1) We don’t know who created God. No doubt those who announce that it is an honest answer in an atheist will present it as a failure in a believer 2) a reply could be who cares who created God.

So you see infinite regress even if it were true is not an atheist argument and it’s use against God is a busted flush.