In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?

[pellius]

'Present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.'

Please do, tough guy.  

I just did. If there is a specific argument that you can refute then I am all ears.

I more than did my part. Now it's your turn, err, guy.

Warning: This is not for the average GetBigger. Only those that are really, really interested in this topic and is willing to endure more endless walls of text from me. I decided to address it because 10 Pints asked a very valid question and challenged me to answer it. I knew this would be an involved undertaking but since it comes up so often, and I feel that because I've agonize, and continue to agonize, over these issues, and have gone the full gamut of believer, Agnostic for twenty years, and now back to a believer, that I can address these questions and issues competently. 

My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof. It is simply to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments and dispute the notion that believers are people who can't think for themselves and are mindless sheep based on emotion and what they want and wish were so.

Again, I want to emphasize, it is to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments. And what I present, to be precise, is not so much evidence but an argument for a Creator. An argument based of reason and science and not just emotion and wishful thinking.


Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith. Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.

I find it curious that a Theist does not consider an Atheist as stupid but simply wrong. Of course an Atheist will argue that their belief is based on reason, evidence and rational argument whereas a Theist's belief is based on blind faith, emotion and up bringing.

I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.

Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause.  Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.

But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god.

Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.

And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.

Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause  and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..

But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.

So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.

So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing. It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.

Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof. It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were  raised on. Also, I just touch on one aspect of the existence of a Creator. The First Cause aspect. There is more. God's fingerprints are all around us. If time and motivation is there I might present my case for that as well. The case not just for a Creator but for a God.

The reason these issues are so important is that what  you believe, how you got here, is there any eternal accountability, determines your perspective on life and your perspective on life determines how you will ultimately behave. Not so much day to day, but that as well, but when you are morally challenged. It's one thing not to steal when you are rich and can have anything this world has to offer. It's quite another when you're not and really, really want something and can get away with just taking it.

[dr.chimps]

'My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith...'


 

[da_vinci]

As in our last discussion, you ignore a simple straight forward question.

"There is no such thing as time."

OK, you can believe that. But science says otherwise. My purpose of this thread is to show an argument can be made using science and reason to argue for the existence of a Creator.

If you are going to appeal to arguments outside of science and reason then that is best left to another thread.

I actually explained a very crucial thing in this discussion: seemingly very complex creations (like these amazing fractals, or........human body) can be created from a very non-complex variables. Once you realize this - all the "magic" dissapears and the world around us suddently doesn't seem all THAT, it's actually a lot more simple that many people imagine (because few people take time to learn science).

[OB1]

Thank you for your participation in this thread.

I was hoping for a more stimulating reply.
At least you could've criticized parts of my post.

Nevertheless I'm not finished yet.
The anser to the thread title question is a solid "No." still...

[OB1]

I actually explained a very crucial thing in this discussion: seemingly very complex creations (like these amazing fractals, or........human body) can be created from a very non-complex variables. Once you realize this - all the "magic" dissapears and the world around us suddently doesn't seem all THAT, it's actually a lot more simple that many people imagine (because few people take time to learn science).

Agreed.
This material universe is basically based on math and equations.
Simple elements which form a complex whole through a myriad of combinations.
Take DNA for example.

The sum of the "universe equation" equals zero.
At any time it is in perfect balance.

[dr.chimps]

Agreed.
This material universe is basically based on math and equations. chemistry.
Simple elements which form a complex whole through a myriad of combinations.
Take DNA for example.

The sum of the "universe equation" equals zero.
At any time it is in perfect balance.

[OB1]

Chemistry would be a level higher in my worldview, but it's legit
Seeing math at low-level.
A base.
But well...
I could be wrong.

[dr.chimps]

Chemistry would be a level higher in my worldview, but it's legit
Seeing math at low-level.
A base.
But well...
I could be wrong.

Math is pure, but life is elemental.

/yes, i'm old

[OB1]

Math is pure, but life is elemental.

/yes, i'm old

 

Ok, got it.

[mr.turbo]

an argument can be made for anything.

didn't read anything posted.

will weigh in if this thread gets to min 5 pages.

[Al Doggity]

Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause  and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..

But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.

So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.

I'm not sure this is a rational argument for the existence of  a "creator".

From the quoted excerpt:"And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator."

I don't think this is true. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you wrote, but  when most say "creator" they mean a sentient, omnipotent being who acted with purpose, not just the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe.

I am not entirely clear on what you are saying in this quoted portion, but it seems like you are saying that once you accept the simple fact that there was a clear beginning of the universe, you have to accept that there was an event that precipitated the beginning  and that THAT event  is  "the creator".  Is this an accurate interpretation?  Or are you saying that because there was a first event there must have been a being that caused that first event?

[10pints]

Pellius,

Thanks for taking the time to create this thread. How did you make the leap from believer in a first cause, to a believer in Christianity? 

[OB1]

Pellius,

Thanks for taking the time to create this thread. How did you make the leap from believer in a first cause, to a believer in Christianity? 

Hi pellius. 

[Necrosis]

Warning: This is not for the average GetBigger. Only those that are really, really interested in this topic and is willing to endure more endless walls of text from me. I decided to address it because 10 Pints asked a very valid question and challenged me to answer it. I knew this would be an involved undertaking but since it comes up so often, and I feel that because I've agonize, and continue to agonize, over these issues, and have gone the full gamut of believer, Agnostic for twenty years, and now back to a believer, that I can address these questions and issues competently.  

My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof. It is simply to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments and dispute the notion that believers are people who can't think for themselves and are mindless sheep based on emotion and what they want and wish were so.

Again, I want to emphasize, it is to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments. And what I present, to be precise, is not so much evidence but an argument for a Creator. An argument based of reason and science and not just emotion and wishful thinking.



Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith. Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.

I find it curious that a Theist does not consider an Atheist as stupid but simply wrong. Of course an Atheist will argue that their belief is based on reason, evidence and rational argument whereas a Theist's belief is based on blind faith, emotion and up bringing.

I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.

Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause.  Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.


Not necessarily, if something exists, it has always existed, ie nothing could never exist if something does. The flaw in the logic is to suggest all needs a creator or cause but the creator. Why can't the universe be eternal? if energy is neither created nor destroyed and energy exists, would that not be eternal? saying all needs a cause but the creator is illogical.


But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god.

Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.

This isn't true, our math runs into something called a singularity, that is the time scales during the early moments of expansion are so small, the calculations are non-sense. This likely doesn't really exist, but is simply an artifact of our poor intellect. The singularity expanded, this is the big bang, it's an expansion, not creation, there is a misunderstanding here.

And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.

The universe began expanding rapidly from a point of infinite density and mass, it was not the creation of it, but the expansion of this point. This point may very well have existed forever. The expansion created temporality, which is required for mass.

Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause  and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..

Why not just another big bang? or maybe a lizard creature, a big banger was not my conclusion. is there a planet spinner since planets spin?




But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.

So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.

So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing. It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.

I am unsure what I am, likely atheist, but I believe everything always existed

Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof. It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were  raised on. Also, I just touch on one aspect of the existence of a Creator. The First Cause aspect. There is more. God's fingerprints are all around us. If time and motivation is there I might present my case for that as well. The case not just for a Creator but for a\
 God.

The reason these issues are so important is that what  you believe, how you got here, is there any eternal accountability, determines your perspective on life and your perspective on life determines how you will ultimately behave. Not so much day to day, but that as well, but when you are morally challenged. It's one thing not to steal when you are rich and can have anything this world has to offer. It's quite another when you're not and really, really want something and can get away with just taking it.

[Necrosis]

Easier to suppress the truth than follow it....for many life is less fun with God's rules.....can't watch porn, can't use rec drugs, can't abuse alcohol, etc...pick your poison. 

Of course all this disguised with "we have no evidence or proof" so better to pretend God isn't there and call him a foolish waste yet argue about him everyday all day.  

People invent other excuses to suppress accountability, but that's the core and everything I said will be challenged, mocked or ignored.

Dude why the fuck would a god put these things here then punish people for them? for drinking alcohol to have fun? LOL... the highest pedophile percentage of any large corporation or body is the catholic church, god's rules aren't sane.

There is no accountability from God? he drowned the world... the animals, plants, people, pregnant woman, babies.... he fucked up.. who is the adult here?

There is no reason to believe your god is the one god if any god does exist. This all from a book, with no real valuable information.

[Necrosis]

I forgot to address this last statement. The most important one in your post.

The premise is that the Creator is the Big Banger. The Creator always existed outside of space and time. That the casual chain has to eventually end and come to a First Cause.

Now you can reject that and you can reject Einstein's theory of General Relativity but then you would have reject science. Remember, science shows that the universe and time had a beginning. And if you reject that then there would have had to be an infinite number or previous Big Bangs and then one would have to ask why is this anymore rational than the proven General Theory of Relativity.

Again, I can't prove anything. I can only present arguments and leave to you to determine what is more likely and unless you can argue otherwise you should be honest enough to admit that you are now arguing outside the realm of science which was the purpose of this thread.

Huh? einstein's theories don't have a calculation for outside time and space, what you are saying is non-sensical, all that exists, exists within time and space.

Your argument has logical failings, being uncaused would mean outside of time, this would then mean he is eternal. If he is eternal, how can he act? time is missing? action is temporal, you are mixing premises up and making some really bold claims.

[pellius]

'My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith...'


 

Thank you for your generous contribution and insights into this subject matter.

[pellius]

I actually explained a very crucial thing in this discussion: seemingly very complex creations (like these amazing fractals, or........human body) can be created from a very non-complex variables. Once you realize this - all the "magic" dissapears and the world around us suddently doesn't seem all THAT, it's actually a lot more simple that many people imagine (because few people take time to learn science).

I spent a lot of time and effort in a sincere and genuine debate in our last discussion only to realized that it was all a waste of time. You simply refuse to answer a simple question.

And post like this, and all this "we are the universe", "there is no such thing as time"... is more suited to be discussed inside a Volkswagon Van in a high school parking lot with a bong pipe being passed around.

I want to have a serious discussion and within the confines of modern day science and not be distracted and lead astray and once again have my time and effort wasted.

[pellius]

I was hoping for a more stimulating reply.
At least you could've criticized parts of my post.

Nevertheless I'm not finished yet.
The anser to the thread title question is a solid "No." still...

Ice actually floats, it doesn't sink to the bottom.

[Man of Steel]

Dude why the fuck would a god put these things here then punish people for them? for drinking alcohol to have fun? LOL... the highest pedophile percentage of any large corporation or body is the catholic church, god's rules aren't sane.

There is no accountability from God? he drowned the world... the animals, plants, people, pregnant woman, babies.... he fucked up.. who is the adult here?

There is no reason to believe your god is the one god if any god does exist. This all from a book, with no real valuable information.

What things did he put here to punish you for?  

God didn't "create" pornography and recreational drugs.....that's all mankind's invented perversion.  Not how God intended for us to govern his creation or fellowship with each other.

God doesn't condemn drinking alcohol...he condemns being a drunkard and a partier.

There's no accountability from people as it pertains to God's laws.   God isn't accountable to us and yet he pronounces judgment upon the unrighteous. The flood was vehicle he chose to pronounce judgment upon the fully reprobate world....a fully evil, perverse world.  

Why do you support evil and belief it should go unpunished?  That's just strange to me.

There's plenty of reasons to believe in God, but so many prefer a state of sin.  There's a lot more to God than "a book" but the unbelieving world has no comprehension of this.

[Man of Steel]

Sorry, MOS but this nonsensical sophistry is a perfect example of an irrational argument for a creator. You are trying to speak with authority regarding God's existence, using scientific terms that you concede you don't fully understand, then state that just because you don't understand them it doesn't make what you are claiming untrue.

You claim that humans can't fully comprehend the boundaries of space and time...but that's ok, God transcends these boundaries that you don't comprehend. He stands outside of time (even though you don't know what time is) He also created time (conveniently), and can understand all the facets of time...therefore, he's timeless! But just because this argument makes no sense to anyone, it doesn't mean that it's untrue.

You have no authority at all for making any claims regarding what God does, yet you tell everyone with such conviction. If, as you say, human beings cannot comprehend the divinity of God, then stop trying to tell everyone the nature of God and stop trying to use concepts that you don't understand in order to sound like your argument has any sort of rational basis.

This was the question i wanted to ask. I get that Pellius is simply addressing the belief in a creator of sorts, but in addition to that, why does that then lead into a belief of a Christian God? It seems to me, that when followers of organised religion are pushed to justify their views, they end up usually only arguing for a very vague and abstract form of deism which has nothing at all to do with the fatuous dogmatism that exemplifies the Abrahamic faiths.

It isn't an argument for a creator.  It's the reason God stands outside of time.  Sure I understand time and space, but I don't know exactly how much time has passed since the universe began or how vast the universe is. 

I'm a representative of Christ and I can speak for exactly what scripture reveals to us about God....that's what I'm doing.

[BIG DUB]

I went shopping for a few things last night and this young guy walks up to me and asks if I had heard of God the Mother. I said are you referring to Mary? and he sais no the Bible says that God is both male and female since he created both. I didn't want to hear it and asked what church he belonged to but he said just a few minutes and he' show me. So, go through a few passages and I'd counter each point he made as an misinterpretation, After a bit he got mad and walks off and each isle I went down he would turn back around and go the other way. As I was leaving I saw him at the front entrance but the people he tried to stop blew him off. When I got home later I looked some of it up and saw this on you tube..

Sad as hell.. Religion can really ruin a person's life if they don't have a strong mind to think for themselves..

[pellius]

I'm not sure this is a rational argument for the existence of  a "creator".

From the quoted excerpt:"And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator."

I don't think this is true. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you wrote, but  when most say "creator" they mean a sentient, omnipotent being who acted with purpose, not just the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe.

No personal qualities in regard to purpose, motivation or intent is given, or was intended to be given in this context. Just a Creator. A First Cause. Qualities attributed to this Creator is a separate issue.

I am not entirely clear on what you are saying in this quoted portion, but it seems like you are saying that once you accept the simple fact that there was a clear beginning of the universe, you have to accept that there was an event that precipitated the beginning  and that THAT event  is  "the creator".  Is this an accurate interpretation?  Or are you saying that because there was a first event there must have been a being that caused that first event?

I would replace "you have to accept" with "therefore it follows" and eliminate "there was an event that precipitated the beginning and that that event is".

The Creator is not an event. Since there was a clear beginning there must have been a "beginner".

[pellius]

Pellius,

Thanks for taking the time to create this thread. How did you make the leap from believer in a first cause, to a believer in Christianity? 

Whoa! Huge shift from the original challenge. So do you concede that one can believe in a creator by using rational and science based reason? I already admitted to you that I am ill equip to deal with all the issues involved in believing in a Christian God. I am not a Biblical scholar. I thought I made that clear.

I need to clarify if you mean defending the veracity and credibility of the Bible or the existence of God.

If the former, than I cannot do it. There are so many parts that are allegorical, must be taken in their proper context, and a more substantial stretch of faith. I read the Bible regularly and I find it informative as well as an effective aid to help me sleep.

In short, it's a bit over my head.

If the debate is about evidence as to the existence of God. Then, yes, I can make a case that those that believe in God or Creator is not just based on blind faith. I, myself, was a pupil of Bertrand Russell and an Agnostic for nearly twenty years.

So it's not like I haven't struggled and examined the issues extensively.

And just to be clear, none of this has anything to do as to whether or not creation was a good idea, or even if a good job was done by a presumably omnipotent and benevolent being.

 

[pellius]

Can you resubmit this reply using the multiple quote function so that I can address each point you made. The way you did it makes it impossible for me to reply without having to bring up a separate window and going back and forth to reply to each point.