If God exists, then where did he come from?

[Swa]

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't assume there is no God. If there is one, then I think it is unlikely that there is a God in the Christian/Muslim/Hindu sense. i.e. religions are made up. So I don't believe in the current religions but God could exist.

Okay, fine. I do see the behaviour a lot from the atheists on the forum.

I also make no assumptions whilst as soon as someone makes the assumption that God exists then they need to make tons of other assumptions. Assumptions about his power, what he can do, what he can't do, what he has done, and what difference it makes to our lives.

I don't assume that God exists from a knowledge standpoint. I believe it because it's the most likely scenario that makes sense and because He has proven Himself to me. It is what I would want to be true. I could be wrong about His power and what it is He wants but I'm not going to dwell on the subject as it doesn't make any difference to my current life.

The problem here is that you're saying that something illogical like God is limited by the own logic that it created. If you're a God and created the very matter and bonds/forces between everything, then why would you be limited in the amount of control you have over it? It would be like the God had only one shot at things and had to just make do with its creation instead of reworking things until he got it perfect. Omnipotent would mean that he knows all future outcomes as well of his creation and thus this is the best he could do it seems.

There are two schools of thought. The traditional Christian one which holds that God can do anything within the laws of logic and the traditional Muslim one that God transcends logic and can make 1+1 equal 3. I take omnipotence to mean anything that's logically possible. I also don't see experiment and trial as an impediment to omniscience.

Don't confuse the laws of nature with logic. I see logic as something that exists outside of any reality that is always true. Aside from what we do know we don't know what universes are possible. An imperfect creation is also not an argument against creation. If it accomplishes its purpose then being good enough is satisfactory. If all you care about is getting to work for example then a few missing paint chips on your car won't make a difference to you.

 

[Swa]

I have yet to see any arguments for a creator not leading to 1 of 3 outcomes:

1. An either now-absent or always-impotent source-of-all-things... eh... 'thing'.
2. An insidious brat with an ant farm.
3. Any number of poorly conceptualised mental constructs arising from man's longing for understanding.

I have yet to see any arguments against a creator not stemming from assumptions.

 

[Necuno]

* takes note of ninja delete*

@beerisgood, actually Kronos is time

 

[Solarion]

The guy who created time & space, even the atoms in your eyelashes. Asking where he comes from.

:erm:

 

[Splinter]

The guy who created time & space, even the atoms in your eyelashes. Asking where he comes from.

:erm:

I'm more in awe of the entity that created your god.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

I'm more in awe of the entity that created your god.

You're in awe of bronze age story tellers?

 

[Splinter]

You're in awe of bronze age story tellers?

LOL!. No.

I'm in awe of the creator of the god that folks like Techne and Beerisgood believe in.

 

[alloytoo]

We know. It can be (is) modeled on computers and in mathematics.


Again it can be modeled. It's solid physics.

Yes, and while not exhaustive those models have produced a significant percentage of universes where complex matter could exist and which exhibit sufficient longevity for the development of life.

It's existence has no baring on the issue. If you see hoof prints you take it as hoof prints. Both horses and unicorns would be assumptions if you had no knowledge of either.

Ah but we do know about horses, not unicorns.

It hasn't. Stenger is making various fallacious claims. The fine tuning doesn't depend on the numeric values themselves but on the constants themselves. E.g. it doesn't depend on the value of gravity but on its force. No matter which unit you measure it in if it was any stronger it would result in a crunch instead of an expansion and any weaker would likewise result in an irreversible separation of all matter.

If you know G you can model G-2.

But you see, you can't just change one variable in isolation, you would have to eliminate all possible combinations of variables, from all possible variations of life.

We've already determined that a variety of universes could support life similar enough to ourselves to be recognizable, never mind what alternatives there might be beyond our imagination.

I'm afraid all you're left with is Carbon-chauvinism and puddle thinking.

 

[Jab]

It hasn't. Stenger is making various fallacious claims. The fine tuning doesn't depend on the numeric values themselves but on the constants themselves. E.g. it doesn't depend on the value of gravity but on its force.

I don't think you're quite understand the argument and definitely not the science. The "numeric value" is how the "force" is defined. Changing the "numeric value" means the "force" was changed.

No matter which unit you measure it in if it was any stronger it would result in a crunch instead of an expansion and any weaker would likewise result in an irreversible separation of all matter.

Ehh no, Stenger's point was many of the constants your creationist ilk like to 'fine tune' are merely the product of the units that describe it.

 

[Jab]

Stenger's criticisms have been addressed in the scientific literature, as pointed out before.

If I recall "addressed" meant some religionist try to claim he was wrong. :erm:

 

[Techne]

If you know G you can model G-2.

But you see, you can't just change one variable in isolation, you would have to eliminate all possible combinations of variables, from all possible variations of life.

We've already determined that a variety of universes could support life similar enough to ourselves to be recognizable, never mind what alternatives there might be beyond our imagination.

I'm afraid all you're left with is Carbon-chauvinism and puddle thinking.

This has been pointed to not really be the case after looking at the facts. Yes, there are other possible life-permitting universes if you change the parameters, but they appear to be an a vast minority.

If I recall "addressed" meant some religionist try to claim he was wrong. :erm:

I don't know why you recall that. Anyway, it does not really matter who said it (ad hominem fallacy anyway), Stenger's criticisms have been addressed in peer-reviewed literature, as pointed out.

 

[Swa]

Yes, and while not exhaustive those models have produced a significant percentage of universes where complex matter could exist and which exhibit sufficient longevity for the development of life.

Significant? Only if you count universes that were tweaked by extraordinary small percentages like 0.001%. That doesn't change the premise of the argument. It is what ranges of constants are able to support life. From what has been modeled so far the indication is that these ranges are very small, some as little as 0.1%. That means that for all constants to be in the acceptable range by chance would be like winning the galactic lottery.

Ah but we do know about horses, not unicorns.

Exactly so your argument is fallacious.

If you know G you can model G-2.

But you see, you can't just change one variable in isolation, you would have to eliminate all possible combinations of variables, from all possible variations of life.

We've already determined that a variety of universes could support life similar enough to ourselves to be recognizable, never mind what alternatives there might be beyond our imagination.

I'm afraid all you're left with is Carbon-chauvinism and puddle thinking.

Not sure what you're meaning with G and G-2.

What you and Stenger fail to realise though is that it doesn't matter if you can tweak two constants significantly to still get an acceptable result. This has always been taken as a given. What matters is the ratios of the constants towards each other. Stenger can eliminate halve the constants at most and treat them like their values don't matter. What he is still left with is the other halve which still amounts to more than a dozen.

Also it doesn't matter much if multiple ratios are tweaked. If the ratio of gravity over expansion for example was higher all matter would clump together as one big ball and if it was lower all matter would be scattered. Under these conditions no structural matter could exist so the value of the strong nuclear force or electron to proton mass would be irrelevant.

I'm afraid all you and Stenger are left with are fallacious arguments.

I don't think you're quite understand the argument and definitely not the science. The "numeric value" is how the "force" is defined. Changing the "numeric value" means the "force" was changed.

I don't think you understand the argument. It is irrelevant what the numeric value of any constant is. Stenger's argument is a red herring. The constants are what they are and we can't change them by changing their values. As an example if you change the unit of electromagnetism two magnets you are holding aren't suddenly going to exert a different force because their values are different.

Ehh no, Stenger's point was many of the constants your creationist ilk like to 'fine tune' are merely the product of the units that describe it.

They aren't.

 

[alloytoo]

Significant? Only if you count universes that were tweaked by extraordinary small percentages like 0.001%. That doesn't change the premise of the argument. It is what ranges of constants are able to support life. From what has been modeled so far the indication is that these ranges are very small, some as little as 0.1%. That means that for all constants to be in the acceptable range by chance would be like winning the galactic lottery.

Not Tweaked, randomly generated and then analysed.

Exactly so your argument is fallacious.

You still don't have a Unicorn.

Not sure what you're meaning with G and G-2.

What you and Stenger fail to realise though is that it doesn't matter if you can tweak two constants significantly to still get an acceptable result. This has always been taken as a given. What matters is the ratios of the constants towards each other. Stenger can eliminate halve the constants at most and treat them like their values don't matter. What he is still left with is the other halve which still amounts to more than a dozen.

So you're moving from Fine tuned universe to fine tuned multiverse......more puddle thinking.

Also it doesn't matter much if multiple ratios are tweaked. If the ratio of gravity over expansion for example was higher all matter would clump together as one big ball and if it was lower all matter would be scattered. Under these conditions no structural matter could exist so the value of the strong nuclear force or electron to proton mass would be irrelevant.

I'm afraid all you and Stenger are left with are fallacious arguments.

Sorry, Hawkins debunked that falacy decades ago.

I don't think you understand the argument. It is irrelevant what the numeric value of any constant is. Stenger's argument is a red herring. The constants are what they are and we can't change them by changing their values. As an example if you change the unit of electromagnetism two magnets you are holding aren't suddenly going to exert a different force because their values are different.

They aren't.

I'm afraid you're sprouting gibberish now.

It doesn't matter how we measure something, as long as we're consistent about it. Once we've measured something we can model it mathematically.

G, or G-2, or 2G or G/2

 

[Swa]

Not Tweaked, randomly generated and then analysed.

And your point?

You still don't have a Unicorn.

You are still conflating things. Your analogy equates a scenario we have knowledge of with one we don't. It's fallacious. It makes no sense. For it to be valid you would have to assume no knowledge of horses and unicorns. Unicorns comes up as likely as horses.

So you're moving from Fine tuned universe to fine tuned multiverse......more puddle thinking.

It's still a single universe. No multiverse present.

Sorry, Hawkins debunked that falacy decades ago.

Sauce?

I'm afraid you're sprouting gibberish now.

It doesn't matter how we measure something, as long as we're consistent about it. Once we've measured something we can model it mathematically.

G, or G-2, or 2G or G/2

Exactly what I was saying. Choose whatever units you want. Will give the same result.

 

[alloytoo]

And your point?

Random<>tweaked.

You are still conflating things. Your analogy equates a scenario we have knowledge of with one we don't. It's fallacious. It makes no sense. For it to be valid you would have to assume no knowledge of horses and unicorns. Unicorns comes up as likely as horses.

Once again I feel compelled to point out that we actually have a horse. You do not have a unicorn.

It's still a single universe. No multiverse present.

Puddles everywhere.

Sauce?

A guy on this list.

Exactly what I was saying. Choose whatever units you want. Will give the same result.

Um no.

I suggest you hit grade one for a refresher in apples and oranges.

"We all different, but in the end, we all fruit" - Gus Portokalos

 

[Swa]

Random<>tweaked.

And your point? It makes no difference.

Once again I feel compelled to point out that we actually have a horse. You do not have a unicorn.

And ONCE AGAIN I am compelled to point that your analogy compares a known scenario with one that you have no knowledge of. A fallacy. For it to be accurate you have to assume unicorns as likely as horses.

Puddles everywhere.

Your brain leaking? Prestik has 1001 uses.

A guy on this list.

Oh some random random guy.

Um no.

I suggest you hit grade one for a refresher in apples and oranges.

"We all different, but in the end, we all fruit" - Gus Portokalos

Seems you still don't have an argument.

 

[alloytoo]

And your point? It makes no difference.

This folks is the facepalm moment.

And ONCE AGAIN I am compelled to point that your analogy compares a known scenario with one that you have no knowledge of. A fallacy. For it to be accurate you have to assume unicorns as likely as horses.

You don't have to assume anything. We have a horse.

Oh some random random guy.

Hardly a random list.

Seems you still don't have an argument.

Gibberish doesn't need to be argued against. Humor suffices.

"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe." - L Long.

 

[Swa]

You don't have to assume anything. We have a horse.

You still don't get it. You're comparing a known scenario to an unknown. Talk about facepalm So you don't have a horse. I still go with unicorn.

Hardly a random list.

So you have no reference.

Gibberish doesn't need to be argued against. Humor suffices.

Ok I accept you don't have an argument.

"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe." - L Long.

I see your may.