A Civil Religious Debate

Now to begin with we must first look at the issue of a single universe (ours). Now the idea is that there was no such thing as time before the big bang which of course makes sense, just as one could say that there are no timings before a race because the stopwatch has not been started yet.

Actually I have to admit the Big Bang might not have necessarily been the origin of time, nor the origin of existence. The origin of the universe? Yes, in a similiar sense that the origin of a rock was natural force, referring to the existence of its form rather than the existence of all the parts that made it. Before the big bang everything did exist as a singularity (which may mean time Still existed). The analogy is wrong because with the race time didn't literally start when the race did, the particular measurement of time did, the analogy comparing the race with the universe would merely show how the formation of the universe has a time span but not beginning of time itself. I don't know if this is going to help or hurt my case but I don't think the big bang was the beginning of time necessarily. There is also the cycle theory where we are going through a cycle of crunches and bangs. The big crunch theory is contained inside this theory, the big crunch theory would be... Think of the big bang, but backwards call this the normal flow of time at the end of time... Basically the universe becoming a singularity again.

Now the issue I have with this is the fact that matter is a physical element and is thus subject to time and it would also need some method of creation, namely forces. So what we get is a situation where time is dependant on the matter to begin and vice versa. Then we also have the forces which are dependant themselves on matter to exist and the matter would need the extreme forces to exist (assuming that is how they are created according to the theory). So if we look at the analogy of the race we have a three way paradox in that the stopwatch cannot begin until all of the swimmers are at the blocks and the swimmers cannot get to the blocks because (in this case) there is no existence before the stopwatch begins. On top of this the starter’s gun cannot fire until all of the swimmers are at the blocks and at the ready and likewise the swimmers cannot start the race until the starters gun has fired. So what this means is that the swimmers would all have to be put into their positions all at the exact same time that the starter’s gun and the stopwatch go off. These both in terms of the analogy and reality are completely impossible

That is because the big bang wasn't the beginning of time, merely the beginning of the universe's formation lifespan. Just like with the race, your analogy is flawed.

There is however a theory known as the “pop” theory which more or less means that matter can pop into being from nothing aka has no cause. This is impossible on both logical and rational levels because matter, as a physical element, must have a cause. It would be like saying a table has no cause which is clearly nonsensical as it must be made before it can be a table. However on top of this there is no evidence to show that matter just appears out of nowhere. Also if matter just pops into existence without a cause then in reality there should be nothing that governs how or in what quantity it comes into being. Assuming this, then the moment the universe began it should have instantly filled up with new matter and thus the universe should be one infinite block of compact matter with no room for anti-matter etc. Now as a final point if pop theory is indeed true then if a physical element can pop into existence without cause then it would be likewise possible for a non-physical being to be uncaused.

I don't know the credibility of that theory, it doesn't sound very credible. I don't necessarily think all matter existed eternally, but it makes just as much sense as a God does.

Now what we call the universe is merely the perimeter with which matter is pushing it out, just as a balloon grows as the air molecules push against the sides of the balloon. We must assume that as matter does not exist outside of these universal “bubbles” that space is indeed a necessary property with which to create matter. In terms of our analogy space would be the pool. This adds another element to the issue in that the swimmers would need to be in the water already, but the pool needs to be filled with water by the swimmers. However the swimmers cannot fill the pool as time does not exist. So in other words they would need to fill the pool, be at the blocks and start the race all at the exact same time as the stopwatch is started and the starter’s gun goes off. If this point is argued against by saying that space is not dependant upon matter’s existence then the concept of an “Expanding universe” is illogical as the universe would already be infinite. As well as this the idea of an omniverse would also be impossible as it would all be one universe, just spaced apart like our galaxies are.

Well this is also based on your assumption of time being finite, being a conclusion of that analogy that I have argued is flawed. Also the universe's expansion (and I could be wrong) is merely meaning that all the matter, stars, galaxies, etc are moving outward into space. As well as the omniverse, we don't know if an omniverse exists, but maybe they could be different realms sort of idea. Maybe exist in different dimensions that never overlap.... Like planes.

Now to deal with the Omniverse theory itself. The basic idea is that the Omniverse is an infinite expanse of universes that can give birth to new universes. This is based on the idea of two universes “touching” each other, the force of which would initiate a big bang. Now the issue with this is that a universe cannot touch another universe if that other universe does not exist. As mentioned earlier the universe is dependant on the matter to exist and so on so forth. This means that a separate universe could not start another universe as there is no other universe to be started. In terms of the analogy think of the separate universe as being a helper who pushes you off of the blocks as you start to give you extra force, however they cannot push you off until the pool is filled. The only possibility then is if the other universe starts off another universe by fulfilling all of these factors meaning that it would have to split off from the main universe much like bacteria. The issue with this is that this is not a violent process and would not initiate a big bang as the matter is already within the space that has separated. But assuming that it did create a big bang then that particular universe would have to be immensely huge to be able to start a new universe with as much matter as ours. Another issue with this however is the problem that if it can split off then so should ours, and we should be creating more and more universes just as it would, meaning that eventually our universe would have petered out into nothing and we would essentially have in the end an omniverse full of single atoms.

Never really heard of this theory, I'm intruiged. Still whether or not you really disproved this I don't know. However the big bang isn't disproved.

However the only way the Omniverse theory could be feasible as a creator is if it is infinite. Now this is impossible as matter can degenerate which means that on an infinite scale the omniverse should have either expanded out and eventually dissipated into nothingness or fallen back in upon itself due to gravitational pull and been destroyed (assuming there is gravitational pull between them which there shouldn’t be because the forces would be limited to the matter which are limited to the universe, just as a starter’s gun cannot be used to start a race the next town over). So as a result of the above statements we must conclude that there was indeed time before the big bang, just in another universe or dimension. Now these times themselves are dependant on the times of their creator universe, resulting in an infinite regression. However the Omniverse cannot be infinite due to the aforementioned points so eventually there must be a point of origin. This point of origin is in the exact same position as our universe, just several steps back and with nothing to appeal to.

Again you have.t proved time didn't exist before the big bang so irrelevant. Cartmans argument really did get you spot on...

This leaves us with only one rational option. That is that there is another separate universe/dimension that is not physical in nature (heaven) which was created by an uncaused entity that is also not physical in nature (God). This uncaused entity would have to be immensely powerful (Omnipotent) and not subject to physical laws such as time (Omnipresent). This being would thus be able to create space and matter at exactly the same time using its immense power (forces) and Omnipresence which in turn would start the universe.

Well assuming that the rest of your argument didn't break down, I am curious, why does their have to be an entity? Why couldn't this realm have created our universe with no entity at all. It would be less presumptuous.

You can ask that question. But if God is from outside our closed system and our only points of reference are what we can observe from our closed system we can only say we do not know.

Exactly, so what reason do we have to believe? How could anyone possibly know? People say that existence and the universe is evidence of god, as everything needs an origin. When you have an explanation for origin however, you haven't explained everything because now the explanation needs an explanation. I know people can believe in both god and the big bang, so this next statement isn't saying it is only one or the other. God doesn't explain origin at all, because to explain origin is impossible, the big bang explains origin just as well as god does, you can ask "where does the big bang come from?" and then come back to the argument that a god is needed. I can make the argument "where did god come from?" making god just as necessary of an answer as the big bang. Don't get me wrong you can think the big bang happened, and believe in god, my comparison was to show how god isn't as necessary as people think.

You are correct. My contention is always that everyone is free to believe what they choose we just do not have enough information to completely discount either. Science can prove to some that God is unnecessary but it can not prove He doesn't exist.

That's the thing, if god is unnecessary, why do you believe? There has to be SOME reason why, and that reason can either be logical or illogical.

If we accept that god exists at least as a concept then we have moved beyond asking if god exists and may now logically progress to questions about god's characteristic qualities. You cannot logically discuss the qualities of something assumed to not exist.

Exactly, my point, whether or not god exists, directly effects the importance of understanding what god is like. If god only exists as a concept, making sense of gods existence in relation to ours is unnecessary and does nothing for us, other than making some good fun in having some fantasy maybe. If god exists more than just a concept, then understanding god as an actual thing beyond an idea is relevant because it relates to us. Actual things can effect other actual things but I am sure you know this. If god is only a concept, then god can't have an effect on us like an actual thing, only as a concept or the influence of the concept. We can logically discuss the qualities of god if god only conceptually exists, as what god was supposed to mean, what god is in actuality, if god is a concept is illogical with having purpose behind discussing the qualities other than fun, and that is how it should be. We can discuss the qualities of an actual unicorn hypothetically all day long, but it would be illogical to discuss the qualities of unicorns in actuality if it was beyond the reasons of amusement, or as if we genuinely thought that unicorns exist. So since it is illogical to discuss the qualities of unicorns beyond reasons of amusement, and partaking in harmless fantasy, should we believe unicorns exist so that we can logically discuss the qualities of unicorns seriously? By your logic we should. My point is that god's existence is equally if not more important than an understanding of god, it isn't a question that should be ignored as long as we are seriously contemplating the qualities of a god. If we are to seriously contemplate the qualities of a god, then we should do so also contemplating whether or not god exists beyond that of a concept. To not acknowledge god's existence at all as a concept is silly, but I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. It is like two people arguing over whether or not there are people who die from unicorns, but not taking a moment to even think "wait do unicorns even exist?".

Ideas have consequences, and thinking of god strictly as an ideological construct, this ideological construct matters alot because it affects the way us humans interact with each other. If god did not exist, god would not have major sociological implications.

See, here I agree and disagree at the same time, when I said if god only exists conceptually, then it doesn't matter, what I meant was, what god would be in actuality hardly matters. If god doesn't exist then arguing whether or not god is just ignoring us, is the universe, what morals god has, what god expects from people, is all pointless, unless you are just playing with fantasy, and not taking any of it seriously but only to that extent. The reason the concept of god has such a huge effect on us is mostly because people believe in him/her/it/whatever, so to make the argument that god exists because it effects strongly how we treat each other is the same argument as "because so many people believe in god, then god exists". That isn't a reason to think god exists as an actual thing, unless you again meant conceptually, if you meant conceptually then I COMPLETELY agree with your statement, and I doubt anybody will argue with us there. Both atheist and theists, acknowledge that the idea of god exists, no reasonable person who has heard of god thinks that the concept of god doesn't exist. Everyone for the most part know that the concept is there, otherwise we wouldn't be able to debate about it here.

That's strikes me as odd. You agree with the statement for reasons different than what I have yet to explain to your satisfaction. ie you don't know exactly what I meant, but you know enough to know that you agree for different reasons.

I think we ran into a misunderstanding as I agreed with the statement that a better question was "is god a matter of serious concern to us?" but figured we had different answers to that question thus resulting in different reasons. I assumed since you are arguing that god does exist, that the question "Is god a serious matter of concern to us?" I assumed that your answer to that question is yes, while mine is no. If you believe god exists, then god is a matter of concern to you, I guess I could see where you are saying no, because the word "serious" is in there, if that is your answer I apologie for being presumptuous. I think god isn't a matter of serious concern, cause we don't have a logical reason to think god exists (in actuality, not conceptually) in the first place. We aren't concerned with unicorns because we lack a reason to think they exist, that are actual or probable. I could argue unicorns are possible, even if it happens to be the most improbable thing in the world, they are still possible, I still don't believe in them, and I would argue it to be illogical to believe in them. As belief means you have to be certain, which means your level of certainty doesn't match the probability of the existence of unicorns.

I'll be happy to discuss effects of god after you admit god exists. Start a new debate and invite me.

Sounds like a fun debate, however I can only admit god exists conceptually as I cannot be more certain in god's existence, then gods inexistence (actually). I do admit god does exist as a concept though, but anyone would.

If we do not first accept the premise that: "truths can be known about god", then any statement or question posed with the word god as the subject remains meaningless.

Some truths can be known about god, because god is a concept, like any other concept. Like the truth that god exists conceptually, the truth that people believe in god, etc. However I am not convinced god exists beyond that, and no truths can be known beyond that at least in this time right now. So not every statement or question posed with the word god is meaningless, because it exists as a concept.

really? Why do you believe in "The Universe" instead of "The Multiverses" ?

I always thought if there was a multiverse, the universe would be apart of the multiverse, I am pretty certain with what I have observed about other humans, that we would still have a "universe" if we discovered a multiverse. I thought the word universe only referenced everything inside our "realm" of space and time, or all of space and time that our existence belonged to. A multiverse would just be multiple universes. By what I thought universe meant, obviously a universe exists, regardless of whether or not a multiverse exists.

Pantheists understand the universe as god, Do you think they believe this for "No reason"?

How do pantheists "understand the universe as god", what does that mean? Understanding implies that you acknowledge the truth of something, know about something, therefore understanding would here in this sentence would imply the universe is god as a truth. This can be justified by having the definition of god being universe, but I think both you and me know that wasn't what the word originally meant. Whenever and wherever the word god came it didn't mean everything, all ancient concepts of gods referred to something conscious, or/and the origin of literally absolutely everything. God was never meant to mean universe. If someone's "god" means universe, I KNOW your god exists, I just don't see the point in calling something that already has a name. Does universe not suffice? I used to be a "pure agnostic" leaning pantheistic. If god is the universe, I agree with the pantheists, I just don't identify with them and their use of the word "god" and have a valid reason in believing in this "god". If god means anything that is presumptuous by having no logical or evidential back up, then when I said there is no reason to believe it, I meant an adequate logic or evidence as to why the universe is god. There is still reason, just not a logical one.

If one really think about it, having a God as an ultimate creator of universe is actually just shifting the problem one step further. If anything that exists has to have a creator, than who created a God. If God does not need a reason to exist, than there is no difference to say that universe does not need a reason (creator) to exist. Those two claims are equivalent and question is which one can accept as an axiom from which to derive the rest of reasoning.

Way to freaking go, that is something I've been trying to explain for a while.

A better question is..."Is what people say about god true?". Because of course god exists, at the very least conceptually.

The question of whether or not god exists is equally important as it directly effects the importance of understanding god better. If god only exists conceptually, then it doesn't really matter, as god could be anything you want it to be, being a concept and all.

Another better question is..."Is god a matter of serious concern to us?" to which any honest thinking person who wasn't raised to be ignorant of history must answer yes.

What exactly do you mean here? I agree with that statement but for different reasons.

Attempting to argue that god does not exist is as pointless as arguing about whether or not there is a universe.

Nobody is really arguing god doesn't exist as much as they are arguing that there is no reason to think so. If we are talking about reason to think something exists, it makes significantly more sense to argue against the idea of a god but not the universe. There is significantly more reason to acknowledge the universe exists then god.

All very true, still I can't say I'm convinced personally.

I am just saying possibility does not equal probability or actuality.

If the idea of god never existed, we would all be atheists, though the label would never exist. The one who "doesn't buy it" doesn't have to prove anything, to hold back belief and remain unconvinced, requires no evidence at all. Only an atheist can truly lack belief and be the one remaining truly unconvinced, only an atheist can make absolutely no assertion by being an atheist. The prefix A- means not or without, and the word theist means a belief in god, so atheism means "not or without a belief in god" not an assertion god doesn't exist. Though atheism can be an assertion most atheists are merely the skeptics. A theist can never truly have a lack of belief like an atheist can without it contradicting being a theist, as the definition for a theist is one whom believes in god. To believe in god that is an assertion within the mind. So if anyone wanted to prove that god doesn't exist as a fact or to even justify believing god doesn't exist, they'd have to disprove god, however it's double edged sword, for to believe god does exist or exist as a fact, one has to show some evidence for god.

.

Any belief in god is unreasonable as there lacks a reason, unless one is provided, which one never has, one that I found logical anyways. However no reason is required to not believe in god in the first place. I would say that is quite easy to argue god being possible especially when one brings up another realm of reality that changes the rules of the playing field, as what is logical for our universe doesn't apply anymore. However, possible does not equal probable or actual. I admit that god is possible, as much as unicorns are possible, of course I could easily argue that unicorns are possible in another realm where our science and knowledge doesn't apply.

a carrot?... a carrot? nothing is nothing untill you defign it, what "carrot" really is, is a string of symbols and sounds used in a code we humans invented as a language. nothing was a carrot untill we defigned it as a carrot. so if carrot didn't mean carrot anymore and we humans all over the world that speak english completely stopped associating carrots with the word carrot, then the "former carrot" is literally not a carrot anymore. in reality nothing is nothing, a pie is not a pie, pie is really just three symbols and a string of sounds that we associate with "pie".

if you could redefign god, then you can turn all "atheists" into thiests by simply redifigning god. if you say god is an alien species, then its likely to exist, but why would you call that god? even if it did happen to create us thats not type of god that is releveant here. logic can be broken down into reasoning, rational reasoning is a ingredient of logic, what REASON do you have to believe an almighty being exists? how do you rationalize that? untill you can prove something to it, its just not rational, its as good as an answer to any question as anyhting I could come up in my head. ex: fairys created the worlds, flying spaghetti monster created the world, or everythings a result of magic, etc. if any alien species did hypothetically create us, and then forced us to worship them that wouldn't make them gods, gods created the universe not just humanity. if it claimed to create us without proof I would probably be skeptical, it wouldn't be worthy of my worship because of reason against, sure it would have created us but then pretty much dominated us I would not respect that let alone worship it. also atheists usually ARE agnostics, agnosticism/gnosticism are an answer to "do you know if god exists?" and atheism/theism is an answer to "do you believe god exists?" the former does not replace the latter and vice versa. let me breakdown what it means to be agnostic/gnostic and theist/atheist. A- (means not or without) thiest (belief in a god) atheist (not or without a belief in god) therefore the only thing necessary to be an atheist is to lack a belief in god or to not assert a belief in god. athiest and theist are mutually exsclusive and share a relationship like non-blue/blue or fiction/non-fiction where an atheist is simply someone who isn't a theist. A- (not or without) gnostic (knowledge) agnostic (not or without knowledge) usually refering to god. agnostic/gnostic have a relationship just like athiest/theist and symmetrical/asymmetrical and etc. therefore you cannot be "just an agnostic" or "just an athiest" you can be of four things:

agnostic athiest (does not buy into or is not convinced of gods existence and does not believe because of lacking evidence, however does acknowledge that god does not factually exist or factually doesn't exist. these are the majority of atheists, even if it may not seem like it sometimes.)

gnostic athiest (thinks he knows that god DOESN'T exist, and since he positively and assertively believes god does not exist, he also technically doesn't believe in gods existence to making him/her an atheist.) believe it or not, but these atheist are rare, most atheists will say they are simply unconvinced.

agnostic theist (believes in god on faith, does not know wether or god exists or not, but will assert a belief in god regardless.)

gnostic thiest (believes god factually exists)

these two terms work like a binary system where the definitions cover the entire spectrum and you are either of those four. if you are an agnostic not asserting belief into a god because you don't know he exists then you are also technically an atheist.