Why or why not.
Why would you presume space requires a purpose to exist?
Forgive him for thinking.
That’d be a big negatory, good buddy. This is a very shoddy argument all around. It really doesn’t prove anything at all.
Says who?
What’s the difference between “space,” an “abyss,” and “nothing”? Incidentally, the inclusion of a black hole in that list shows that whoever wrote it knows very little about astronomy. A black hole isn’t a “void,” it’s a very old, very dead, very dense star.
This rather directly contradicts the previous point. If space is not “nothing,” then it must be “something.” Therefore, it “fills” itself.
That’s a massive presupposition. The universe does not have a purpose. The universe just is. This argument uses its conclusion as one of its supporting premises. It’s like arguing, “God exists because God exists.”
Again, your argument presupposes the existence of a creator. An atheist would argue that matter and space exist for no fixed purpose and with no guiding will or intellect behind it. These two sentences are merely statements of a contrary belief, not evidence for a contrary belief.
…'kay.
If space is a thing, what are its properties that differentiate it from “nothing?” And how is this evidence that is was created, as opposed to spontaneously coming into existence?
The ad hominem doesn’t really help your case.
The Big Bang theory says the same thing, more or less, and doesn’t require God as a motivating force.
And what’s the evidence that space existed before matter? Perhaps they came into existence simultaneously, or perhaps they both always existed.
And even if all of this were correct, I don’t see how it entails the existence of any kind of deity, much less the Yahweh character from the Bible …
As with most of these sorts of arguments, its starting out with a premise that may not even make any sense. We can talk about matter and space in conventional terms. But what the heck does it mean that matter “needs” space in order to exist? What is “space” and how does matter require it? What does that even mean? How would we even KNOW that, given that we’ve never experienced anything other than matter in space.
Which means… what? How would we know what “no space” is like?
So, now we are mixing subjective concepts like purpose into concepts that are already vague and undefinable? And how did “creation” sneak in there again?
Wait, so how did “created” sneak in there again? How do we know any of this and what does it mean?
How do you know that space and matter aren’t simply aspects of some larger phenomenon?
Er, so does that mean that space is a type of matter? How does space “exist” exactly?
Wait… where is the conclusion to the argument? I thought it was going to prove God… so where is that conclusion?
Why? A vacuum can be created without any need to fill it. What about a lack of matter means that it requires matter?
Why must space have a purpose?
A circular argument. Matter was made to occupy space, space was made to contain matter. Since they only rely on each other to exist, you could simply have neither and be fine.
But previously you said that space was needed to contain matter. Why can’t we just have “nothing” to contain matter, and not space? There’d be more room, after all.
No, you’ll be able to interpret the Bible as saying that. And, of course, this assumes the Bible is correct.
Oh, and even if your argument was utterly watertight - it would only suggest the existence of god or gods, not God.
It would be illogical to think that space would have been created with no purpose.
If you have space, something must have been planned, ergo, matter.
Space is a thing. It exists. why?
I conclude to hold matter.
Whatever the reason, space was created. It is a thing.
No, you’re just insisting that space has to exist for a purpose that meets your standard of “logical.” And what created the thing that created space?
Space-the last frontier.
Why? Why is it logical to say there must have been some motivation to it’s existence? Why couldn’t it just be random, for example?
That doesn’t follow either. The existence of space, even if it were planned, does not then mean the existence of matter. Maybe it was created as a conversation piece. “Yeah, I created nothing from nothingness yesterday.” “Damn you and your metaphysical nonsense!”
I conclude in order to give giant space weasels something to chat about. What makes your theory more supported than mine?
How do you know it was created? What makes you think it hasn’t always existed?
And i’m afraid you can’t say “whatever the reason” when you’re trying to prove the existence of something with specific attributes and motivations such as God. The reason must be in accordance with that being’s acts; if the reason it was created was as a conversation point, that would actually tend to disprove God (assuming we could prove that, which we can’t, of course).
Can you demonstrate how this idea is illogical? What specific fallacy or fallacies does it contain? How is claiming that space has a purpose more logical than claiming it does not? How is your position more provable than the converse?
Why? Assuming that space does have a purpose, why does it follow that it must have been created to hold matter, and not some other purpose, of which matter is a useless byproduct? I mean, there’s so much empty space in the universe, it seems odd to make such a big area for the express purpose of holding so little matter.
How is space “a thing?” What properties does space have that makes it different from “no thing?”
I may take this as my sig.
That’s fine as a belief, but you were talking about proof. You haven’t proved anything yet, you’ve just stated your beliefs. You haven’t given any reason for us to think that your beliefs are any more correct than ours.
Why would you be trying to prove or disprove (christian) God anyway. It seems a little masochistic. If he does exist I’m pretty sure he wants me, and probably you to burn in Hell.
I’d forget about the whole thing…
So this is the weakest attempt at a God-proof that I’ve seen (using assumptions that things were “created” and “for a purpose” as “proof” that things were created for a purpose … c’mon!), but what I don’t understand is why anybody feels the need to prove God.
The crux (okay bad choice of words … “the center foundation”) of any God concept is faith. Faith is a belief held without proof. Faith is holding onto a belief even in the face of proof to the contrary. Believing in God even as one is burnt at the stake. Having faith in something that you have proof of is a poor faith indeed and won’t serve you well. If you have faith you need no proof.
This isn’t about Christian God, it’s about Space God. Space God doesn’t want you to burn in Hell! He wants you to burn in space. That’s why he created it.
Is god a “thing”? if he’s something, then he couldn’t have existed without space… if space were created, who/what ‘created’ it? And did it then, in turn, create ‘God’?
The very statement:
Is circular… the “was created” presupposes a creator, and according to your own argument, nothing could have existed without space… so, if space is ‘created’, where was the creator creating the space he created?
It would be illogical to assume that space must have pourpose, or matter for that matter.
No. It loses me at “purpose,” which is an assumption.
ted, welcome to the SDMB. I would heartily recommend that you read Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. It will give you, I think, an interesting perspective on these issues.
As for the OP, what my fellow Dopers are saying is that you’re loading assumptions into the argument which, while possibly true, aren’t self-evidently true. Hawking discusses these (and other) issues at some length, in a style that many people find both informative and entertaining.
It isn’t beyond reason that someday someone will prove the existence, nor nonexistence, of God. However, lots and lots of very able logician have all failed so far.
If the existence of God is ever proved then the need for faith goes out the window, it will be obvious what is the proper thing to do and we won’t need churches and preachers.
As I understand the latest theories, matter is space. Space is merely an aspect of spacetime, and matter is merely a form of spacetime.
There could still be time, and other aspects of existence that’s don’t require space.
Space has no purpose now unless we give it one. It doesn’t need a purpose.
Nope; the universe could have just been vacuum, or a point, a singularity.
Since they are the same thing in different forms, they were created at the same time.
Well, yes. True and trivial.
So ? The Bible is fiction.
As said, no. There’s no evidence of or need of planning.
Why not ?