Does this prove God?

Great Debates
21

Besides what the others have said, matter wasn’t around first. There was energy to begin with - matter is frozen energy. Space is created with the energy. To add to what Der Trihs said, try to conceive space with only one particle of matter. You can’t do it - your imagining includes you as the second bit of matter.

Second of all, by the uncertainty principle, there can’t actually be nothing. Look up quantum vacuum. Particles pop into out out of existence, using no net energy.

The universe follows neither your preconceptions nor those of the writers of the Bible over 2,000 years ago.

22

In space, no one can hear you burn.

23

If anything exists it would be ‘in’ existence, so since it is impossible for nothing to exist, as the moment it exists it becomes something. So existence had to be before anything else. No beginning or end,there can be nothing outside of existence,for if it is outside of existence then it is not!
Monavis

24

As a post script: If God existed He would have to be in existence,so where was He ? If he wasn’t in existence he didn’t exist!

25

Except your dog.

26

It wasn’t created. It always was. It always will be. It just IS.

27

Heck, even I don’t buy that the OP is any sort of argument for God’s existence.

On the other hand, I believe that the improbability of the emergence of Mind from Mindless Matter in Motion is a pretty decent argument.

28

Not to put to fine a point on it, but

Nothing can prove/disprove the existance of God other than Him appearing right before your very eyes

29

What would be so special about that? Seeing things that are not really there is hardly unheard of in humans.

30

The way I understand probability, the probability of a thing happening that has already happened is right at 1/1.

If Mind in fact has occurred/emerged/been created/appeared where before it was not, and in order for your argument to be “pretty decent,” we’re going to need a pretty decent definition of “Mind.”

31

So that would be a No then.

Was it everything you hoped it would be?

32

That is what is known as “begging the question”. You are assuming that which you are claiming to prove. You have not provided any any proof that space was, in fact, created as opposed to “just happened”. By presuming that it was, you presume a creator, which is what you want to prove in the first place.

33

But aha, he has cleverly gotten around that. Note his penultimate statement:

Put that in your smoke and pipe it.

34

Well OK seeing as how you are nitpicking allow me to …

God “Hi Mangetout”
Mange “erm Hi whoever”
God “I’m God”
Mange “Prove it”
God “shake hands”
Mange “Fuck me!”…faints

35

“Created”? That something exists doesn’t establish that it was “created”. Space could, for example, have simply always been, eternal. Such does not appear to be the case (at least not from a simplified non-astrophysicist flyover of Big Bang theory), but even as a hypothetical it rids us of the notion that anything that exists must have been “created”.

Oh dear. Really huge leap. A broad jump of truly Olympian proportions. “Planned”??

I’m not sure you understand space; or at least not as I do. Please differentiate between the following:

Case A: Empty space, genuinely in existence but with nothing in it
Case B: Hypothetical empty space, equally empty, existing only in my imagination.

To me, there’s no difference between “actual” space and “imaginary” space. It only becomes non-hypothetical when it’s not empty.

But space is, as I’ve just explained, not a thing, and it does not exist in the same sense that anything else can be said to exist or not exist.

I hate to kick more props (OK, no I don’t, but it seems cruel), but matter probably isn’t what you think it is, either. From pretty long ago up to the physicists of early modern times, matter was thought to be composed of elemental particles that could not be subdivided further, and physics from the Renaissance through Einstein picked apart previously elemental particles to find they were composed of yet smaller ones, but by late 20th Century the smallest “buildilng blocks” came to be understood as not at all “blocky” —better described as patterns of probability, interference waves of interaction where the interactions themselves, not “things interacting”, and forces, not matter, began to appear to be what’s primal.

“Matter” is a verb; it’s a disguise that energy adopts, and energy is process.

So not only is space not a “thing”, matter is not a “thing” either.
(I happen to be theistic myself, but I do not see much overlap in our theologies)

36

Hello, FriarTed. And with you, finally, I can say I do see an overlap in our theologies.

37

On still another hand, couldn’t the existence of some sort of mind in so many different creatures indicate a common origin sometime way back when?

38

No, that degree of alliteration is statistically improbable unless it were true. :wink:

39

In nature nothing that has a specific purpose occurs by accident.

We forests of trees, not forests of tables and chairs.

Your position of ‘random accident’ is illogical when applied to space and matter. It’s similair to you maintaining that there are 983 degrees in a circle, or there are an infinite number of degrees in a circle.

The only purpose of space is to be the container for matter.

If you can find another purpose, tell us, but spare us all childish comments.

As to time. Our concept of time is difficult to apply to space and matter. We measure time by the revolutions of the earth around the sun. How can that be applied to matter which might be thousands of light years away?

“Mr. Spock, we are appeoaching what looks like a singularity. what’s going to happen?”

“We don’t know, Captain, all we have are theories.”

“you mean like the theories of that brilliant thinker and poet, Sid Smith?”

“Exactly, Captain!”

40

And again with the begging of the question. This statement is nonsensical.