Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
Created on: September 7th, 2006
Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
WARNING: My comments are NSFW. Please evaluate and vote based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint. If you have an objection, post below and I will address it in the YTMND at the end.

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
September 7th, 2006
(1)
Wow, thats crazy, I have used the exact same reasoning in the past! The problem is it confuses people and they tell me well God just doesn't exist.
March 27th, 2007
(-11)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-11)
F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT
March 27th, 2007
(-9)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-9)
F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F
March 27th, 2007
(-8)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-8)
F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT
March 27th, 2007
(-9)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-9)
F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F
March 27th, 2007
(-9)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-9)
F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOTF*GGOT F*GGOT F*GGOT F*
April 15th, 2008
(-2)
that got long and boring and you spelled a bunch of sh*t wrong, AND the "trinity" should've been in a triforce figure like LoZ OoT
August 11th, 2008
(0)
1
December 26th, 2008
(1)
Or, I can merely state that the universe itself has simply existed without a cause from the beginning of time, which is OK since causes require time in which to exist. If you want to claim that a cause outside of time did it, fine, but just as nothing has been observed to happen without a cause, so too has nothing ever been observed that is caused by something that happens outside of time. So in reality, we're still at the agnostic position. Sorry.
August 13th, 2009
(1)
Actually whetstone has proven nothing because there is no evidence that the laws of physics are the same outside time and space and there is no evidence that time and space don't exist outside the universe . However even if we we take you statements as fact all you have really proved is that the universe came into existence at some time in it's history.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
Voted 5 ♠Passed♠
September 7th, 2006
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
you don't get it do?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
KCA. Yawn.
September 7th, 2006
(2)
if god existed.... he would have smited you a long time ago
September 7th, 2006
(-4)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-4)
Please make the music last a bit longer as towards the end it cuts, but a very good YTMND that shows you put a lot of effort into it. Ignore ADD tards who 1-star.
September 7th, 2006
(-2)
[ comment (and 1 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
wtf, rylasasin? Logical reasoning too far above you? Anyway, bitchin' presentation
September 7th, 2006
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
agreed
September 7th, 2006
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
GOOD JOB! Who created God?
September 7th, 2006
(6)
The truth of the matter is that there is NO truth when it comes to proving the existence of God. Therefore, no one can claim that God does or does NOT exist. The concept of God, created in the mind, is only a CONCEPT and CANNOT -- as Kant argued -- manifest itself into a tangible idea. We can also see that the Bible is NOT divine by examining its existential symbolism. Something divine would not be applicable to only a tiny group of bronze age tribesman. Good try, but WRONG.
October 1st, 2007
(0)
ur exactly rite im not a rly a religion but im closest 2 christian out of all of it but my thot is God is wat u want it or him/her 2 b, there's no proof or evidence about nething or against it, God is wat u want God 2 b, that's wat makes God perfect, he's different 4 every1
September 7th, 2006
(-5)
[ comment (and 1 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-5)
again and again you get downvoted for preaching your bullsh*t here, yet you keep doing it. you know of course you just keep making yourself look like a c*ck when you keep on doing this. Is it any wonder why christianity is declining worldwide when you got *ssh*l*es like you making yourself appear like a narrow minded person. you know your kind remind me of somthing....
September 7th, 2006
(-3)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-3)
lovely work, i'm a muslim and i believe that god can do anything... besides, how can 1 supernova great a huge universe with unique planets? if it all came from a supernova, every planet/stars would have the same elements.
September 7th, 2006
(-3)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-3)
I'm atheist. Deal with it.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
too patronizing. I think i know what cause means, dont need three examples. Also, proseletyzing is not cool. Why cant we keep religion debates out of here? However, very well done, and good job not sh*tting all over science.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You could've also gone with Aristotle's theories concerning the "un-moved mover". Regardless, humans are still limited to 5 senses.. we're not designed to understand the universe, it's far beyond einstein or anyone else to answer.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
"GOOD JOB! Who created God?" Watch the whole thing and find out.
September 7th, 2006
(-2)
[ comment (and 1 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
"We are the (far-right) Christians. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. we will add your biological and techological distinctiveness to our own. resistance is futile." sound familiar? who says this is a spiting image of this guy?!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
plus five for NEDM!!!
September 7th, 2006
(1)
Oh I get it. You tricked me into watching something long and boring so that you can yell "f*ck you, ha,ha! I made you watch something with no substance whatsoever by telling you that I had something important to say at the end! Sucker!" Nice one.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
whoops forgot a part... "your culture will adapt to service us"
September 7th, 2006
(0)
onyxia, your answer is fusion. stars begin as hydrogen and fuse into helium, and it goes down the periodic table till it hits iron, and then the star collapses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Formation_and_evolution
September 7th, 2006
(2)
also- you may want to watch the whole thing before you comment because you make yourselve look stupid to the people who actually watched it.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
beautiful
September 7th, 2006
(1)
I'm not saying I don't believe in God, only that your arguement was flawed. You said that everything had to be caused by something else but that nothing could have caused that which caused the universe (you say this was God.) That is failed logic. Keep in mind, I am NOT an atheist.
September 7th, 2006
(3)
Everything we understand is a tiny, tiny insignificant fragment in a vast network of information. Religion has the arrogance to assume the universe was created just for us humans. As fun as that may be to pretend, it's hard not to laugh about the idea if you think about it.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
You have proved only that you can regurgiate some Aquinas. You have, apparently, read nothing else of note.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
Just another one of those 'god lies just outside the limits of our scientific capability' deals, perhaps, but whatever. still thoughtful
September 7th, 2006
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
I watched the whole thing (sadly) just to make sure it wasn't gonna turn into 3500hz square wav and poland; that wouldve gotten it a 5. While a high school philosophy instructor might be impressed, your logic has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese. 2 points that come to mind: 1. the second law of thermodynamics deals soley with heat exchange and does not take into account the conversion of other energy into heat 2. you use causality as an argument yet propose an entity that exists outside it
September 7th, 2006
(2)
i can understand the argument that the universe can transcend causality, being as its the universe, but where the f*ck in here did he talk about a christian god? sheesh, just showing the basic fundamentals of all religions, take it or leave it. I actually disagree with his argument, it was just a great presentation; f*ck down voters who cant respect disagreeing arguments
September 7th, 2006
(0)
A bit deceptive, and uses a couple misleading flaws. But it's a pretty solid presentation all around, even if faulted.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Explain how this is faulted? also poland. haha. how about, answer the question for them as to why God created the universe.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
another point is that this argument to prove the existence of a God fails to define the criteria of what determines a God. You assume that time is linear, many of your arguments are based on theories, and the only thing you attempt to prove the existence of is a "First Cause" (you are unsuccessful at that attempt btw)
September 7th, 2006
(1)
it faulted with the 2nd theory of thermodynamics and god existing out side the realm of space, time and thought, meaning he can exist outside causality. But decent none the less, and it gets a 5, because of the people bitching about christianity, when theyll 5 the nth thing about brian peppers or steve irwin
September 7th, 2006
(0)
[ comment (and 1 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
Time has a beginning, you cannot dispute that.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If you believe in abiogenesis and the evolution of man, then life can come from non-life and intelligence from non-intelligence. You did not prove that these were impossible, so the First Cause need not be sentient. Also, you are confusing "universe" and "existence" The universe we see today had a definite beginning (Big Bang) but that does not mean that all of existence began then, only that we are limited to knowledge about our universe.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
^ above are numerous f*ggoty semi-essays. . . . < here are five stars and some succinct praise
September 7th, 2006
(-1)
Thank you to those of you that obviously watched and commented intelligently. A nice change from the comments in my last site.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
(Continuing) Thirdly, you assume that causality is applicable to everything, while it may not hold true for the universe itself. Even if you accept a First Cause, the universe could be its own first cause. You are just pushing the problem back a step.
September 7th, 2006
(-1)
5 Star'D
September 7th, 2006
(-1)
see the problem with this whole thing is that while whetstone and I'll use theArk, because he's using logic, have differing ideas, neither can really prove either. And that's why there's religion...take it or leave it i suppose
September 7th, 2006
(-1)
5. Matter was not created out of nowhere unless there was a supernatural being. Alpha and Omega.
September 7th, 2006
(-1)
And The Universe can not be its own first cause.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
sure it can. Prove otherwise. Just saying it can't be it's own cause doesn't make it fact.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I don't see any preaching that the Christian 'God' exists or that the Christians have it right, I just see a solid scientific theory on the existence of a supernatural being that created life. Quit getting your panties in a twist.
(-1)
"solid scientific theory"; Do you even know what science is? I see no empirical evidence or correct applications of any established theory. This is just a philosophical argument with flawed logic. To the site creator: The rebuttal about your circular argument is CORRECT. Your response to it is flawed, because your very first premise is to assume that everything obeys some "law" (physics theories are not laws) of causality, hence your argument boils down to what was shown in the rebuttal.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
i said that a little while ago, but those *ssh*l*es left; it's actually decent discussion now, with the holes in the evidence presented
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Thoughtfully, solidly, and logically argued without the sour aftertaste of the 2X4 sermons I used to get all the time when I was an atheist. (I can't blame anyone for getting annoyed with generic Bible thumping...it still annoys me even now) Good job!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The "Big Bang Theory" intelligently states that highly dense matter "exploded" to create the Universe, explaining why the universe is expanding. What the "Big Bang Theory" does not explain, however, is where this "dense matter" came from. Make your own conclusions from that fact. :)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
wow, a lot of 5 stars. I got some objections for you. 1. incorporating fads into this for a higher vote is cheap. 2. To suggest causality stops at god because god is amazing or infinite or whatever is making huge leaps of faith in assuming anyone mortal can understand what god is since there's so many definitions in different cultures. And if the universe encompasses all existence, where exactly would god be in order to create it? If god can just magically appear, why not the universe?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
"incorporating fads into this for a higher vote is cheap." Actually the reason I incorporated them was to keep the pace fresh and a little funny so you wouldn't get bored.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Holy writtings, hokus pokus Magic incense, blood and tears Impeccable the ways of Heaven To inflict terror and fear All are born of woman And the female is of sin So we are all drenched soaky wet in sin When our life begins And for the rest of our days To reach his kingdom full of bliss We seek forgiveness For something we didn't do To someone who does not and never has And never will exist
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Um...just curious...which god? Also there is no such thing as unlife because living is just a state of being created by the human mind to explain what we do. In the end if you look down to out tiniest particals we are infact build of inanimate objects. I do like it though. But still no such thing as unlife.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Answer: Matter (Universe) can not appear from nothing. A Supernatural being can.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Bubonic: You should consult an English teacher before you dabble in human philosophy and religion.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
First, there is no proof that non-life can not come from life. Life on this planet is composed of materials which exist as non-life and could, theoretically, be randomly placed to gether in the right way as to cause life.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You stated that the "First Cause" has the following characteristic: Independance of physical laws such as space, time, and matter. Being present in a space, being effected by time, and consisting of matter is my definition of existing. You told me, by my definition of existance, that this "First Cause" does not exist and proved nothing to me.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ok so you said "who created god"...and you compared it to president washington only being the first president...but wasn't there like other events that lead to that? ahem revolution...anyways...wouldnt that mean that a god would need something before him/her/it as well? the truth is you cant prove exsistance...you can just believe that's it. and thats how a god would intend it also....until then you're full of bullsh*t
September 7th, 2006
(0)
But what created this non-life that you speak of?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
There are 2 flaws in your otherwise well presented argument(which I gave the 5star for): 1. Entropy. Energy doesn't disappear, it dissipates. It can still be collected later, e.g. by a black hole, or another singularity. 2. "Non-life/non-intelligence cannot create life/intelligence". Humans are horribly complex machines based on a mess of electric impulses and chemical reactions that just happens to form a relatively stable body capable of moving and making noise that varies based on past stimulation.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Did this "mess of electric impulses and chemical reactions that just happen" happen by chance, or is it incoherant of me to suggest that the Universe is far to complex a thing to be pure chance?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
jp2m5:"But what created this non-life that you speak of?" Are you saying life created non-life which created life? I thought that the argument used non-life can not create life as part of its proof.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
jp2m5, the universe is vast. That pure chance begins to amount up to something because of the extremely numerous possibilities.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I believe, and this is not proven by me, obviously, that Life created non life which exploded into what we know as the universe. In other words, I believe that God is the ultimate in designers. I believe God created the matter that initiated the Big Bang, as we know it. I don't believe God was sitting on a proverbial cloud, waving a magic finger and owls sprouted from air. I believe he initiated the Big Bang.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ALSO POLEND. NEEDS 3100Hz SQUARE WAVE...you know, I bet the big bang sounded a lot like a 3100HZ SQUARE WAVE. 30 seconds. Seriously though, nice ytmnd.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
In conclusion, I like YTMND and owls.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Then there is no way you can expect to prove the existance of god. Like cyberen said, why can something supernatural appear from nothing when something natural can't. Who's to say the universe itself does not contain these "supernatural" properties.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
1 For bad logic.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I am saying that under the notion that matter had to come from somewhere, I believe a creator created it. But I wouldn't tell someone that ii is fact, rather a personal theory
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also, this is a very interesting article that explains the intricacies of the universe, and how the universe probably needed a creator. Enjoy! | | | | http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Take a class on Philosophy then debate. You CAN NOT disprove the existance of anything, using a philosophical standpoint (Sunsets), but the inverse is true. Since science is not philosophical (but, ironicaly, stems from it) and theology (Lol, contradiction in terms) is the essence of philosophy, you can not truly debate the existence of god, becuse the medium you use to do it in.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Good grief dude no. You can't establish a premise and then contradict the premise in your conclusion. Also, there is no "Law of Causality." Casuality is an inference. As for ye old creationist argument: good grief. You really expect people not to have heard that before? Advice: when trying to be all scientific and such, try not to get things like the 2nd law completely wrong.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Proof that god exists with logic, horray!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
God or not, I found a very interesting quote: "A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain." I thought that was cool.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I believe in God, but -2 because the logic you used to prove God also disproves God. According to this God needs a more powerful god to exist so that it can create him, and on up along an infinite ladder of more powerful gods.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"I don't see any preaching that the Christian 'God' exists or that the Christians have it right, I just see a solid scientific theory on the existence of a supernatural being that created life." That is the right answer IMO. the fact that God exists is a basis to all religon, but the nature and downright "personality" of God is where it differs.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Well made, but I'm still not convinced, the reasoning still leaves a lot of room for agruement.........though I must give credit for using actual research, I half expected something like "[name of person/relative] survived [terrible ordeal], there he must exist!"...I so hate that reasoning. Also liked how you didn't attach it to a certain religion and for that I'll give it a decent vote.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So let me get this straight. Someone asks "who created God" and all you can come up with is "OMG TAHTS A STOOPID KWESTHUN NOBODY DID!!!" You still did not address how God got here. You got causality though. You made an attempt at evangelization, and that CAUSED me to vote 1.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Why does the First Cause have to be alive and intelligent? You state that intelligence needs to be created by intelligence, but this is simply not true. We evolved from lower life forms with lower intelligence. In the fantastic book "Godel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstader, the author argues that intelligence is nothing more than complex organized patterns. It's quite a bit more complicated than that, but intelligence in and of itself does not exist as a physical thing. Think of brain trauma patients. They
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The basis of your arguement is that everything has a prior cause. Yet you state that the question of "What created God" is formed in ignorance. So everything BUT God HAs to have a prior cause. So why is God exempt? Hint: Its because you want him to be.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Again you don't see any room for chance to create life. The universe is vast, as I have said. Because of this vastness, the likelyhood of something such as life being formed by chance AT LEAST ONCE is considerable. As for the complexities of life, I believe evolution can be responsible for that, but you probably don't want to hear anything about evolution, right?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
have lost intelligence because the patterns of neurons in their head have been disrupted. Intelligence is, at its core, a chemical reaction. As is life. Think of everything that you're made out of: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen; these are all either elements left over from the Big Bang or heavier stuff created in supernovae. The fact that RNA and DNA can reproduce themselves and conduct a chemical reaction in order to create a shell around them to protect themselves and facilitate the transfer of new material is
September 7th, 2006
(-1)
"The basis of your arguement is that everything has a prior cause. Yet you state that the question of "What created God" is formed in ignorance. So everything BUT God HAs to have a prior cause. So why is God exempt? Hint: Its because you want him to be." Actually He's exampt because He caused the universe itself including cause and effect. This is why we call it 'First Cause' not 'Just another Cause.' You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. The line must be drawn heah!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I don't think he is saying he wants God to be the Alpha and Omega, rather, that science can not come up with a cause for the universe, therefore logic of the human mind says that there was a supernatural being who innitiated life. It's one subject. Who or what created the universe. If we don't know what did, then maybe a god did.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Let this end the arguement. Stop applying science to god, god is not human, god is ABOVE science, nobody has a brain big enough to comprehend god to its fullest.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
remarkabe, but it is not magic. It is just simple science and chemistry. Bacteria are no more alive than you are; you just know you're alive. And you only know this because you are so complex.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
First you make the assumption that the universe has a definite begining, which may or may not be true. Then, however, you make an immediate leap to assume that the only possible beginning of the universe was its creation by a supernatural being. No rationale is given for why only God, nothing else, could have possibly created the universe. Your argument concludes that there is a God and seeks evidence to support it, rather than the other way around.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
AKA The laws of physics, science, and all that other human stuff doesn't apply to God.
October 7th, 2007
(0)
Lawls of Physics also don't apply to: Fairies, magical exploding ponies and NEDM. Seriously. We created God. Go figure.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
-1 for NEDM, -1 for the questions at the end that only idiots and 4 year olds would ask. Well made, but doesn't have any real proof of "God", only a cause. That argument could also be used to explain the "Big Bang" theory. It was the cause, so you don't need to worry about anything before it. However this theory is also fundamentally flaud because of the argument that everything has a cause...action/reaction if you will.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Wake up and smell the coffee: there is no God, merely a philosophical one: an explanation for everything man doesn't comprehend (yet), fully created by man himself. +1 for NEDM though :D
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Sometimes incomplete explanations can be worse than no explanation. It lets them feel justified in not believing. But at the same time you have to try, if people didn't try the word wouldn't be spread. No one knows everything. And the existence of God is most likely impossible to prove, which is the whole point behind faith.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Tibor: The universe had a beginning, whether a supernatural being started it or not. Atoms or the hand of God, the universe had a beginning.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So then by that argument what was the precurser to "God" from your point of view? And of course from a different point of view we must ask the question of what caused the "Big Bang" and why. One could also argue that it is pointless at this juncture to ponder these notions, as no difinitive answer can be reached. +1 for having well-researched and thought out ideas.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I believe that rCon and WTL provide the two best arguments for their respective sides.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
+2 Its late and I'm not thinking completely. Everything goes back to a begining, including causes - which cause and effect had to be created to exist to begin with.
September 7th, 2006
(1)
-3 because you used "The First Cause's" independance from physical laws (space, time, matter), which is my definition of existance, to prove its existance. Nice effort though
September 7th, 2006
(0)
+1 again for bringing out the first intelligent comments (some at least) I have seen in a long time on YTMND.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You still fail. You start well, but it doesnt hold up. You conclude that, because the universe is here, something caused it, and so, god did it. I conclude that, the universe is here, something created it, so the big bang created it. Same logic, isnt it?
September 7th, 2006
(-1)
"You still fail. You start well, but it doesnt hold up. You conclude that, because the universe is here, something caused it, and so, god did it. I conclude that, the universe is here, something created it, so the big bang created it. Same logic, isnt it?" Yes more or less, I only had enough space in the YTMND to show that God exists- without going really indepth into WHICH God exists and what exactly His properties are. So yes, the goal of this YTMND was ONLY to prove that a God exists.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"so the big bang created it" What created the big bang and the void before that?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Amusing, but your logic is flawed. To say that something unintelligent can't create something intelligent is one of your biggest flubs. If that were the case, are carbon atoms, and hydrogen atoms, and oxygen atoms all intelligent?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Well done, however I do have a few OBJECTION(S)! Why does "God" need to be intelligent? There is no observed law that states intelligence must come from intelligence. It could also be any god, from the FSM to Ra. Anyway, I feel that although it could be supernatural, the origin of life, the universe, and everything is far to complicated to be answered by humans. God is just our placeholder to explain what we cannot. I prefer to say "I don't know", then to go with "some god did it".
September 7th, 2006
(0)
This YTMND proves one of two things. A) Either a supernatural being created the universe, or that B) the universe and the matter that created it has existed forever without a beginning. Both sound absurd, but I think A) is more reasonable.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"The line must be drawn heah!" No, its drawn there because thats where you want it to be drawn. Its just as impossible to prove God as it is to disprove it. But I'm pretty damn sure if there really is a god or multiple gods, the christian god wouldn't be one of them.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I wonder what Max thinks? Something about servers, most likely.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"Are you saying that atoms and such are all intellegint?" No he's saying they're alive, not dead, they're living. "the universe and the matter that created it has existed forever without a beginning" Now that's just absured :P
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Never argued whether or not the universe "began". Disagreement is with the rationale used to argue God created the universe. His argument: 1. The universe came to be 2. Therefore God (the supernatural) created it No reasoning or argument given, only the immediate leap to assume God created the universe. Not a valid argument.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Nice to see something different for a change.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious god created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"No he's saying they're alive, not dead, they're living." Life =/= Intelligent.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Tibor: You are correct. The author did assume that God created the universe. But here are the facts: Either a supernatural being created the matter that makes up the universe, or the matter that makes up that universe has NO beginning.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Profoundly stupid. Well, science has yet to explain all the origins of the universe, therefore an invisible man who lives above the clouds made it. And he's got 10 rules, so follow them or you'll suffer for all eternity. But He loves you.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
People try to percieve god as this human-type of being in a spatial dimension like ours. "What created god?" "It couldn't have been there forever" But what most people fail to realize is that time is something that was created when the universe was, so some thing that caused the universe to be made doesn't nessicarily have to have an age, or has to have been around forever. Simply put, whatever it was, it was there right when the universe was made. Infinite infinites before then, and never before then. Blar
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"mysterious god created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence?" Did you just click the ytmnd and go straight to the comments to debate god?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Why can't the Big Bang be the First Cause? Makes sense to me.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
" Profoundly stupid. Well, science has yet to explain all the origins of the universe, therefore an invisible man who lives above the clouds made it. And he's got 10 rules, so follow them or you'll suffer for all eternity. But He loves you." Not once did he reference to Christianity.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"Why can't the Big Bang be the First Cause" But what caused the big bang, and everything before that?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
WTL: That quote was actually from the movie Contact, and if you had read my previous comments, you would have seen that I have discussed the YTMND itself in some detail.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Exactly
September 7th, 2006
(0)
A side note: Christians do not believe that breaking one of the ten commandments leads to suffering for eternity.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The Big Bang couldn't have created itself? Think about it. You take every single mote and mole of existence and pack it down to a point that makes a proton look spacious so you create a singularity: a point so dense and massive it exists outside the laws of physics. It then expands at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years. Doesn't the Big Bang fit the criteria whetstone set for god?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
" "Why can't the Big Bang be the First Cause" But what caused the big bang, and everything before that?" And yet that same arguement can't be used about a god? Its wrong of me to ask what caused god, and anything before that?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
That singularity that caused the Big Bang existed outside of time and space, didn't it? If you have no time, you have no causality. QED
September 7th, 2006
(0)
http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Exactly, only two avenues are explored: either God exists, or nothing exists. No other avenue of possibility is explored. Again, the author makes his conclusion and finds evidence to support it, instead of the other way around as he should.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
It is not wrong to ask what created God, but going under the THEORY that God is real, you would have to take his word that he was the "begginnig and the end." Going under the THEORY that God isn't real, asking what created God is meaningless. Does that make sense to anyone?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"And yet that same arguement can't be used about a god? Its wrong of me to ask what caused god, and anything before that?" I'll say it again, Big Bang = Science Theory, God = Not a Science Theory, you CANNOT apply Science to god, he's a supreme being, our minds can't comprehend why or how he got here, however they can comprehend how the big-bang happened.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
brainwash brainwash
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"If you have no time, you have no causality." That's true. Doesn't every cause come before an effect, making causality require some sort of notion of time? How can something independant of time, as you stated the "First Cause" was, cause something which is not independant of time.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Chumba. Explain again how the Big Band can occur from itself. I just imagine that the smallest and tiniest particles that create up matter had to have a beginning, where they were created from some source.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
What do we need god for? If science can explain how everything came to be from a scientific First Cause (ie, the singularity which caused the Big Bang), what do we need a god for? So we can feel like we're not all alone in this universe of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"our minds can't comprehend why or how he got here" How is it possible that you can even say that god exists then? How is it possible that you can comprehend THAT he exists, nevermind HOW.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"you CANNOT apply Science to god" O rly? Do me a favor and look up the definition for Science. Even though you're saying that no one can interperet god, that still an interpretation, and you have just contradicted yourself. GG.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I guess my first response to that is to save us from Hell, and to fellowship with, which is a totally different subject all together.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"Explain again how the Big Band can occur from itself." And yet I'm not allowed to ask you to explain how god can simply eternally exist, and not occur from anything...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
WTL is saying that God could possibly be higher than what we call reason.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The singularity existed before time was created. Time and space were created by the Big Bang. The Universe is not expanding to fill a greater void, it's creating space and time as it goes. The singularity existed before the Big Bang, and before the creation of time.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
WTL is saying that god must exist because he is incomprehendable.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Because Fry, you can't prove how God existed to someone who doesn't believe in religion. However, a scientist could attempt to explain to me how atoms form out of "thin air." You see what I am saying?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Then how is it that we're able to percieve at which point his existance would be vital? (i.e. the creation of the universe(s))Simply, we couldn't. People just can't seem to be able to wrap their mind around the idea that god doesn't need to have existed at any point in our dimesion to have existed at all.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Exactly
September 7th, 2006
(0)
God is Santa Claus for adults. Thank you, and good night.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Yes, I understand. And yet we both sit here discussing on the Comments of a YTMND labled "Why god exists" Are you saying that this was only created for other people who believe in a religion? To reinforce and justify their own ideas which they already believed in?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Chumba: How can you use the term singularity to prove how time started? In my un-educated opinion, I see a singularity as nothing. It is the absence of anything?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Maybe it was just simply as it was. Another human attempt to use logic to prove that god exists.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"god doesn't need to have existed at any point in our dimesion to have existed at all." If god does not exist anywhere that affects people, then what makes you think he exists at all?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your arguement of a first cause is certainly not a bad one, but certainly doesn't lay the groundwork for "God". Now, you immediately dismissed the idea of non-intellegence creating intellegence, and non-life creating life. In order for those characteristics to work, you have to provide both better examples AND a definition of life and intellegence. Even plants can exhibit "forms" of intellegence (ie growing towards light).
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Simply saying rocks don't write science papers isn't good enough for the second part of your arguement.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Tell me fry, have you heard of "string theory"?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I would probably say yes, sadly. Trying to prove to someone that God started the universe is like trying to prove to someone that man went to the moon who doesn't think that man went to the moon. If they believe in their heart that it is impossible to go to the moon, than no amount of philosophy or science can move them from their stand. So yes. lol.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
THE UNIVERSE IS A SERIES OF TUBES.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Turtles all the way down.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If someone doesn't believe people went to the moon, show them pictures. If they do not believe the pictures, ask them why and explain exactly what happened in that picture to make it so. What the religious asks of the non religious is to believe in something that it would be impossible to comprehend the "pictures" to.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence? That is a logical fallacy. What if the universe simply...exists? An infinite cycle of Big Bang's and Big Crunches. As the universe ends, it begins again, a byproduct of the structure of spacetime. Don't get me wrong, I personally do not totally doubt the existence of God. But any college professor, including most ministers and Divinity profs, will find many flaws in your suppositions. Finding God isn't about logic. It's about your own personal journey.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
A) A Supernatural being created the matter that made up the universe. - OR - B) The matter that made up the universe has no beginning.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Hey whetstone, to illustrate my point: http://entertherzor.ytmnd.com/
September 7th, 2006
(0)
They would say: here is the "picture" (example: the universe was created somehow) but it is impossible for you to ever understand it (god is separate from physical laws, time, space, and matter do not apply to him)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your conlclusion is insufficently proven even by the false statements you tried to slip in at the end among the ones you proved logically. Specifically: Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence - insufficiently proven. Your argument about rocks and research papers is a straw man. Toddlers also do not write college level research papers. Yet with further development (and a corresponding increase in complexity and intelligence) they may one day be capable of it.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"A) A Supernatural being created the matter that made up the universe. - OR - B) The matter that made up the universe has no beginning." You assume that this supernatural element must be a "being" and not just a thing, like chumb's singularity.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
A singularity is a point so dense that in our universe, it curves space to the point that light cones (scientific models of time in relation to space) intersect with an event horizon. In simpler terms, you'd have to accelerate faster than the speed of light to escape its gravity, which is impossible. But if you had a singularity that was so dense, it representing everything in the universe, the laws of physics would be bent to the point that there would be no space OR time, and that space and time would be
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Therefore it is demonstrated that complexity and intelligence can increase with time (in fact, incresing complexity is one of the results of entropy). Therefore the statement that intelligence is required for creaton of intelligence must be thrown out.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him? If the answer is no, no amount of evidence would make you believe in a god!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
created as the baby universe expanded.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
It's funny. No amount of ration explanation of why god DOESN'T exist will change thier minds, and no proof that he does will change ours. Like I said before, though, Turtles all the way down (look it up.).
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Yes, I would like to know him. If there was a supreme being who created all, that'd be fantastic. But I have observed no proof whatsoever of his existance. There is proof that people have landed on the moon. I have seen pictures of people being on the moon. I have a basic understanding of how it is possible for them to be there also.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
slow down the end. too much text too fast.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
But life CAN come from non-life. Organic proteins and proto-cells have been grown from raw materials in labs.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"i refuse to prove that i exist" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, i am nothing!" "Ah," says man, "but the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isnt it? It proves you exist, and therefore by your own arguments, you dont!" "oh, i hadnt thought of that..." says god, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
oh sh*t, another generic bible-thumper is going to call me 'stupid' for expressing free will to not believe. I don't care about veracity, the fact is that this isn't a religious recruitment centre. Take it someplace that's actually appropriate. One.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Right you are, fry! And exactly what I was getting at earlier. A being that created the universe, as this ytmnd states, it outside this universe's sphere of influence I guess you could say. The "supernatural." This being in this "supernatural" realm could simply be a dimension we cannot perceive, or completely outside any sort of interpreting. So, how could something like this effect/create our universe? Refer to string theory for a second. Objects could possibly be created from a non-spatial universe as--
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Similarly, "Life cannot come from non-life" is false. Minerals in rock are simple non-living molecules. However, when ingested by living things, they become integrated into them, essentially becoming part of life. The same holds true for any other atom or molecule. By themselves none of them are alive. Brought together in the proper arangement, they are.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5'd both of these sites. Provocative! http://entertherzor.ytmnd.com/ http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Religion has always held back the cause of science. Galileo was forced by the Catholic Church to denounce his theories and say that the Earth was the center of the Universe, when he had empirical evidence and knew in his heart that wasn't true. Then we had the Scopes Monkey Trial, now stem cells...
October 10th, 2007
(0)
Tell that to Issac Newton.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
easily as anything could happen in this dimension. Basically, its just the inter-dimensional ripple that could have caused the universe, or whatever.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Well, it's late and I have classes in a few hours... Thanks for the discussion jp2m5 + others.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
And if you treat intelligence as some sort of quantifiable principle, rather than an absolute, and hence subject to mathematical law, then you are quite literally implying that intelligence, and new levels thereof, can never increase.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Therefore there is nothing stopping life from arising from non living things, other than the number of combination attempts needed to stand a statistical chance of success. given sufficent time and many parralel combinations, that isn't really an obstacle. So that statement too is void.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, in other words could have given God a chance, but choose not to. That is the only way I could describe it.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Troggie42: "'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God."
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So basically, the 2 statements that argue for an intelligent, living creator are invalid and must be discarded.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The only thing that scares me about religion is this: Say god did exist and I was born into a Christian family. I get "brain washed" into fallowing God and go to heaven! Yes! Now lets say that a boy is born into a buddhist family and is dead set on the fact that Buddha will lead him to heaven. He theoretically goes to hell. That scares me. Is it fair for everyone?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
But, lol, I do believe in Jesus. IRONY!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Very well made, but you're not saying anything. "Something had to have made something else!!!" Redshift supports the Big Bang Theory, anyways.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If everything has a cause, then there can be no first cause! It would mean that an infinite chain of events lead into infinity-past. Of course, as the bible says, God is supposedly infinite. But the bible is kind of outdated, science-wise.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If everything needs a cause, then there can be no first cause; and if you nonetheless assert a First Cause, I will ask how you know (assume) that there can be an uncaused cause. If a deity can be thought eternal, so can the universe. God-belief does not answer any question; it just replaces a mystery with a mystery: if god made anything, who made god? In conclusion, you're an idiot.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Heard it before. The problem comes when you try to apply physics and laws to the big bang. The very act of explosion instead of being a black hole forever defies all current theories, of, well, everything. There's no way you can say that the beginning of the universe wasn't an exception as well. the fact is, we have no f*cking clue what the hell was going on there, and saying "God must have done it, prove me otherwise" isn't proving anything.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Look, if you want other people to believe in God, who do not already, then preaching with YTMNDs is not going to be effective. Honestly, the only way to get people to pay attention to your beliefs is to live them, and hope that your example is good enough that they want some of what you're smoking. 3 for effort -2 for no NEDM music with NEDM images.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I am my own god...your logic is amateur. Christians: "Help, we're being oppressed!!"
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You only proved to me that you don't know what a real proof is. This is not one. Also, "intelligence cannot come from unintelligence" and "life cannot come from no life" ? It can, stop making up things plz thx.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
i give you 5 for not forgetting poland
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Whetstone, I give you a five for a quality ytmnd, but subtract two for obnoxious proselytizing. The strength of your argument lies in its graphic layout and presentation, not in the argument itself. I will acknowledge that you bring up some interesting points, but none that can hold up to an intelligent rebuttal. Also, I highly doubt that you believe you will convince people of the existence of God by using ytmnd as your pulpit. Understand that I'm not belittling your effort, merely offering criticism.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
This is very informative. I am an agnostic, and I believe in a 'higher power' but I can't put my finger on faith, therefore I am "open to anything." Consider it realism. This is insightful, nonetheless.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
define "intelligence", define "cause", define "beginning". if it exists it must be within space and time. period. if it is "outside of space and time" it "does not exist, and has never existed, anywhere". also misstating the laws of thermodynamics. the Universe can not "run out of energy" because it can not exchange heat with anything else, as it is by definition "everything". anyone who upvotes this is an illogical dumbf*ck.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Nicely done!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
although.. my votes are refusing to register
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your answer to the first, and most powerful, objection is shallow. You have proclaimed that everything must have a prior sufficient cause. You have proclaimed that the universe must have a prior sufficient cause. You move this back one step and proclaim it god, but ague that god need no prior sufficient cause. I ask: why? If we can say that god needs no prior sufficient cause then why do we not just stop at the beginning of the universe and proclaim it is the universe that is a first cause uncaused?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If you cannot account for godís uncausality I do not se why it is necessary to account for the universe's uncausality.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I was expecting comedy, but instead I got elementary theology. Seriously, the cosmological argument of all things? The most disproven theological argument of all time? If I have time tomorrow I'll make a ytmnd refuting this.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
the amount of energy in the universe is Zero. the amount of mass in the universe is Zero. what you perceive as "matter" are just standing waves in vacuum. You lose, good day sir.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Okay I've watched the whole lot including objections and I still don't think everything in there is right. Can't put my finger on it yet though. And didn't God in his autobiography... erm Bible say that we shouldn't attempt to work out if he exists but just believe it? Anyhow I think the process you described is more like the big bang.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Nothing really new there. Just the common incorrect comparisons, and a selective appliance of scientific theories/laws for benefit of whatever goal there is at hand. Nice try, but it's starting to annoy me that people try to convert me even on a COMEDY WEBSITE. Sh*t.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
that life can come from non-life is one of the most beautiful and profound discoveries one can come to realize.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Since space and time are part of the same construct (space-time continuum), in the beginning when God created space (the heavens), he also created time. God has no cause or creator because time didn't exist before creation.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Once again we play the shell game. I can also claim that things outside of time need not be caused. Therefore I can postulate that the universe "began" itself out of the "before" of the universe. We can play the game of hide the god in the incomprehensible all you like, but there is no particular reason to believe that uncaused causes must be deities except that it makes some of us feel fuzzy inside.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
http://whetstoneatheist.ytmnd.com/
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Furthermore it seems that modern quantum mechanics make invalid the premise that "all events must have a sufficient cause". Indeed physics seems to show that there are many non-causal events occurring all of the time at the quantum level. If and until this can be reconciled with the idea of macro causality the causal ground of the cosmological argument is, at least, shaky.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
It sure is convenient when we cannot explan something to say "God did it". Just because we cannot explain certain things now with our current theories doesn't mean there is a supernatural explanation. This kind of view is dangerous and closeminded, because then people stop looking for the true answers.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
God created the atoms, too. He has a complete understanding of physics on the quantum level, and causality does exist there too. Just because our instruments (or slits, in experimemtation lol) tell us an electron "appears" to be in two places at once, doesn't mean it actually is. It's like a blind man using a toothpick trying to track the random movement of a minnows in a lake, and describing it with math. We will never conquer quantum mechanics. Oh mand I hope that doesn't sound stupid.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
the last couple of comments say it best. Take it to a religious forum.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Bullsh*t. Your own logic for the extistence of a god states that for something to come into being their must be something before it. This is circular reasoning. Using your own methods whatever came before god (since he must have been caused by something...) was: -inteligent (God, whom is inteligent couldn't have been created by something non-intelligent) -Very powerful (he created God!) So what created the cause of god? This goes on forever.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also, I'm agnostic - I believe there must have been something to start the universe but your logic doens't explain the existance of god.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Bpnta. The electron really is in two places at once. There is simply an inherent degree of uncertainty in our universe, perhaps that is god.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
What I mean, is George Washington came to be president "in charge" of the USA as a result of the constitution. What is god's constitution? Like I said, circular reasoning. You yourself said that god must be "alive" to create living things. But how did he become a living thing?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
lol Crayola, I am going to make a YTMND of that uncertainty-statement of yours :D
September 7th, 2006
(0)
hey cool, I took philosophy 101 too. so if there is a God and he is so intelligent, why does evil exist?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
life does come from non-life. an embryo is non living. a prior cause doesn't sound like god. it sounds like a big bang caused by molecules forming. nice job trying though. it was entertaining.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
by the way. even though I disagree, I did vote it a four anyhow because you put obvious effort into this. I may not agree but I respect you for that.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Bravo! :) Certainly kicked my YTMNDs' butt alas, i wont stop making them.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Three major problems spring to mind; Firstly, the statement that "life cannot come from non-life". If you knew even the basics about cellular life you would know that it's entirely possible for living organisms to be created from biological components. Basic amino acid/protein strings can form, under the right circumstances, to create very basic forms of life, but life none the less. It's theorised that this is how life on Earth might have began, the "primordial soup" theory.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Secondly, the concept that intelligence cannot be made by non-intelligence. Again, flawed if you consider life that can be observed on our own planet. We are aware that evolution has been taking place on this planet for billions of years. This can be shown through our own DNA sequences, which not only share common characteristics with other organisms, but also hold redundant information that shows our biological past (for example we have DNA that technically allows us a dorsal fin).
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5 for effort.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Since bacteria and the like clearly possess no intelligence baring natural instinct, which is more a product of their phisiology rather than any nerve centre, it's possible to conclude that intelligence can indeed spring from non-intelligence. It merely takes time, not divine intervention. Thirdly, the idea of causality cannot be attributed to the creation of the universe, since causality is a product of the laws of our universe (you did touch on this granted, but didn't fully explore it).
September 7th, 2006
(0)
As such it's impossible to attribute any creation of the universe to a single point, because you're viewing it from the idea that time is a constant, which before the universe (and indeed time itself) would not have applied. It's been suggested that the universe does indeed have a beginning, but in the same sense it may also not have an end either (see the Big Crunch theory for more information on this). QED. Or should that be NEDM?
September 7th, 2006
(-1)
Deep. Of course if God does exist he's a bit of a prick for causing the horribly painful deaths of so many people. That's not the sort of person I'd want to believe in. Were it not for the first law of Internet arguments I would compare God to Hitler.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I agreed (albiet with doubt) up to the properties of God: outside the physical laws, intelligence, and vitality (ie, alive). These are mere conjecture, nowt to support them. We might as well say he's blue! The Cosmological Argument (for that is what this is), is crap. Hurrah!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Sorry. These premises are not new at all, and are even more illogical than stating there is for a fact no god at all. It would be very strange and breaking much logic if a being somehow existed, had intelligence, and had power, all from no where. Just like the question of the universe. It could be, that there is a much more complex and very strange, but completely logical explanation to the universe, and thats what I think is more likely than a being having all that out of nothing.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I wouldnt state wikipedia as one of your sources cause we all know 50% of that is all false information. 5, pretty friggn sweet. Now immmmmm a believerrrrrrr yeah yeah yeah yeah.....
September 7th, 2006
(0)
This was very flawed. Since the universe was compressed into an infinitely small point, and time is a property in our universe, time would not have existed until the big bang. Therefore, to ask 'what created it' is like asking 'what was before the big bang, which is an illogical statement as time did not exist then.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Uhh, just because a question is "ignorant" (and it wasn't in the context you used it. That's an honest question you didn't want to hear because it upset you so you screamed the crutch-word.. ie ignorant) doesn't mean it's not a good, legitimate question. Refusing to ask or answer a question because you don't know, discuss, or hear the answer - IS ignorant. Secondly, you can't disreguard the "but then who created God?" question with the babble you put there. That question is essentially impossible to know.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Reasoned arguments with no preaching or sales pitch? Take your five, good sir, take your five.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
err.. *want to disuss, or want to hear. Anyway, something, can't be created out of nothing. So inevitably, the question cannot ever be answered by anything known to man to date. Because the process of the question is infinite. What created God? Ok, if something created Him, what created the thing that created God? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? It will go on like that forever. Now I'm not saying something did create Him, or that something didn't create him..
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Why is it reasonable to assume God is eternal and without cause but so unreasonable to assume the universe is eternal and without cause?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your logic for Objection 1 doesn't make any sense. I'm not American and know pretty much nothing about US history, but I'm hazarding a guess that George Washington didn't just appear out of thin air and automatically become president. I'm assuming that he was put in power by the people/rose to power himself, which doesn't fit with your explanation at all.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'm simply stating that currently, we as human beings have no possible way knowing one way or the other. We don't even have the kind of science and/or information to even begin theorizing about it one way or another. To end my 2 cents, I believe that -ORGANIZED- religion is a horrible thing that actually limits the boundaries of human exploration and spiritual evolution. It leads to wars and hate, and in the end, almost all major religions are essentially based around the same thing anyway.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
And who says YTMND is lowbrow. Well said sir.
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>