Does Gravity Disprove God?

[bilby]

And my argument is that Gods are no more suited to that role than garbage bin ninjas - so if you can rule out the latter, you also rule out the former.

If you are talking about a creator, then talk about a creator; but a creator is not necessarily a God.

We were talking about god; a god is, in most common religions, necessarily a creator. I assumed we were talking about the usual definition of god.

A god might, in most religions, necessarily be a creator; but that does NOT imply that a creator is necessarily a God. That's some pretty basic logic right there. All A are B does not imply that all B are A.

We can, of course, rule out an intelligent creator that survived the act of creation on purely observational grounds - intelligence simply is not a characteristic of the things that existed in the early universe, so if a creator made our universe, it didn't survive the exercise.

You know, like everyone else knows, that astrophysics and fundamental physics is a very soft science.

No, I do not; and nor do a significant number of people. You are, quite simply, incorrect.

What is wrong with simply saying "We don't know how the universe started"?

I am not. I am simply saying that with the knowledge we have, we cannot rule god out. We may never be able to rule it out. And I am even willing to say, unless someone can convince me otherwise, that the probability of god is indeterminate.

That depends on the God. For the vast majority of Gods positied by major religions, we can rule them out - because they are defined as having logically impossible sets of characteristics. We can rule them out without even examining the creation claims for them.

Why mention Gods in this context at all? Nobody says "We don't know how the universe started, so we can't rule out garbage bin ninjas"; but that sentence is EXACTLY as reasonable as "We don't know how the universe started, so we can't rule out a God".

If it created the universe, then it is not really a ninja. And if a "thingy" created the universe, then it would just be another name for something with god-like abilities.

Only if your sole criterion for 'God like' is 'can create universes'. But that is absolutely NOT what most people think of when you say 'God like'. If you say 'He had God-like powers' to someone, then they might respond with 'He could raise the dead?', or 'He was omnipotent?', or 'He was all knowing?' - but few people would say 'So you are talking about a guy whose only extraordinary ability was that he could create universes?'

Oh, and why can't something that creates universes also be a ninja?

 

[ryan]

If you are talking about a creator, then talk about a creator; but a creator is not necessarily a God.

We were talking about god; a god is, in most common religions, necessarily a creator. I assumed we were talking about the usual definition of god.

A god might, in most religions, necessarily be a creator; but that does NOT imply that a creator is necessarily a God. That's some pretty basic logic right there. All A are B does not imply that all B are A.

We were talking about god. Then I used the term "creator". That should not have been an issue since the god we presumably would be talking about would be the creator of the universe. Stop trying to find issues where there are none.

No, I do not; and nor do a significant number of people. You are, quite simply, incorrect.

Unknowns: unification of forces, dark matter, dark energy, high energy cosmic rays, black holes ...

Possible beginnings: big bang, big crunch, big bounce, inflation ...

Possible universes: holographic, multiverse, many worlds, white hole theories ...

Possible ends: big freeze, collapse, no end, white hole theories, static equilibrium ...

Possible sizes and shapes: flat, closed, curved, donut, infinite, finite, increasing, accelerating, shrinking, ...

They know a lot, but there is so much more they don't know.

When I took university chemistry and organic chemistry this last year, I was disillusioned at the unknowns of chemistry compared to physics - the difference of certainty were disturbingly substantial. And to think, astronomy and cosmology are built on chemistry and the chemistry of much larger and complex systems, not to mention its own emergent phenomena at those scales. And even worse, much of what we know is theoretical since we have obvious limitations on experiments that we can perform.

They are defined as having logically impossible sets of characteristics. We can rule them out without even examining the creation claims for them.

What can be illogical if god created everything?

And there is the problem of Satan. Satan can test us. Like Descartes' evil demon, there is no getting around it (except he tried to use a not so great argument to do so).

Oh, and why can't something that creates universes also be a ninja?

I am not talking about the type of god; I am talking about a god in general.

 

[DBT]

If the World is a quantum simulation generated by super high tech little green men, then the creator/s of the world are not a God, or gods, albeit they in possession of godlike technology.

 

[ryan]

If the World is a quantum simulation generated by super high tech little green men, then the creator/s of the world are not a God, or gods, albeit they in possession of godlike technology.

Okay, now imagine that it is one green man, and the green man simply always existed. It's not the most likely possibility, but it is hard to see how we can completely reject it.

 

[bilby]

If you are talking about a creator, then talk about a creator; but a creator is not necessarily a God.

We were talking about god; a god is, in most common religions, necessarily a creator. I assumed we were talking about the usual definition of god.

A god might, in most religions, necessarily be a creator; but that does NOT imply that a creator is necessarily a God. That's some pretty basic logic right there. All A are B does not imply that all B are A.

We were talking about god. Then I used the term "creator". That should not have been an issue since the god we presumably would be talking about would be the creator of the universe. Stop trying to find issues where there are none.

You know, like everyone else knows, that astrophysics and fundamental physics is a very soft science.

No, I do not; and nor do a significant number of people. You are, quite simply, incorrect.
Unknowns: unification of forces, dark matter, dark energy, high energy cosmic rays, black holes ...

Possible beginnings: big bang, big crunch, big bounce, inflation ...

Possible universes: holographic, multiverse, many worlds, white hole theories ...

Possible ends: big freeze, collapse, no end, white hole theories, static equilibrium ...

Possible sizes and shapes: flat, closed, curved, donut, infinite, finite, increasing, accelerating, shrinking, ...

They know a lot, but there is so much more they don't know.

When I took university chemistry and organic chemistry this last year, I was disillusioned at the unknowns of chemistry compared to physics - the difference of certainty were disturbingly substantial. And to think, astronomy and cosmology are built on chemistry and the chemistry of much larger and complex systems, not to mention its own emergent phenomena at those scales. And even worse, much of what we know is theoretical since we have obvious limitations on experiments that we can perform.

They are defined as having logically impossible sets of characteristics. We can rule them out without even examining the creation claims for them.

What can be illogical if god created everything?

And there is the problem of Satan. Satan can test us. Like Descartes' evil demon, there is no getting around it (except he tried to use a not so great argument to do so).

Oh, and why can't something that creates universes also be a ninja?

I am not talking about the type of god; I am talking about a god in general.

There is no sense talking about a "god in general"; that's just an apologist's trick to avoid being pinned down and having to defend their absurd claims. There are as many different and often contradictory claims about god as there are believers - there is no 'god in general', to suggest such a thing is an failure of reason.

Another pathetic apologist's trick is concentrating on only one aspect of a purported God, in the hope that nobody notices that the same attributes and arguments you rely on in one context, are the ones you rule out when discussing the supposedly identical God in another context. You seem to have been hoodwinked by that failure of reason too.

There are no Gods. They exist only as fictions in the brains of people. There is no justification for attaching the 'god' label to the unknowns at the beginning of the universe, or indeed anywhere else. It is a pointless exercise, and frequently harmful.

You say: "We were talking about god. Then I used the term "creator". That should not have been an issue since the god we presumably would be talking about would be the creator of the universe." But that IS an issue - which God were we talking about? You haven't said; and it is critical to any discussion of whether that god is real. Which god is it, and what are its attributes, abilities, properties and desires? And how do you know?

The God of the largest Christian sect, Roman Catholicism, has a number of claimed traits that are incompatible with reality - so we can conclude that that God does not exist in reality. That implies that he did not create the universe, and the implication is robust without any reference at all to what we do or do not know about how the universe started - unless you wish to argue that a fictional character, that exists only in the imaginations of people, and has done so only for at most a couple of millennia, is part of the category of 'possible creators for the universe'. You might as well suggest that Harry Potter created the universe - it's just as reasonable.

Of course, you might pick the different God described by one or other of the Protestant Christian sects; or one of the Islamic or Jewish sects; but all of these are just differing interpretations of a wider fan-fiction based on the same fictional character - they disagree on what is or is not canon, but they all draw on the same set of source material.

Or you could break with the Abrahamic fan-fic, and pick a God from some other theology - but whichever God you pick, it is possible to show that that God is fictional.

We don't need to know jack-shit about cosmology to be certain that a fictional character is not the creator of the real universe. "It is unknown" does NOT mean "Anything is possible". Not for sane values of possible.

If you want to claim that God is exactly as likely as a candidate for a possible creator of the universe as Captain Ahab, Harry Potter, or Luke Skywalker, then I will agree with you. But while people mention God in this context without also mentioning these, and an infinity of other candidates, I will call bullshit. God has the same place in this argument as Yoda. And as Mad Max. And as Third Stormtrooper (opening battle sequence).

 

[bilby]

If the World is a quantum simulation generated by super high tech little green men, then the creator/s of the world are not a God, or gods, albeit they in possession of godlike technology.

Okay, now imagine that it is one green man, and the green man simply always existed. It's not the most likely possibility, but it is hard to see how we can completely reject it.

I reject the assertion that such an individual qualifies as a god. Creation alone is not god-like enough for me, or for almost all of the world's theists - over 99.999% of gods ever described do a LOT more than just that.

And if we do assume his existence, for the sake of argument, then what? How does our assumption that the LGM exists help us to understand anything, to achieve anything, to do anything or think anything at all?

Let us assume a teapot in orbit around alpha centauri. Now what? What has this navel gazing assumption achieved that made it worth the effort to assume it? The centauran teapot is no less useful than the LGM. And neither qualifies as a god.

 

[DBT]

If the World is a quantum simulation generated by super high tech little green men, then the creator/s of the world are not a God, or gods, albeit they in possession of godlike technology.

Okay, now imagine that it is one green man, and the green man simply always existed. It's not the most likely possibility, but it is hard to see how we can completely reject it.

'Always existed' doesn't appear to relate with 'simply' because 'eternal' raises more questions than it answers (if anything)... if, rather than comfort, we are looking for actual explanations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We are in an existence where there are creators. Humans can create things for animals that are so far beyond the animals' comprehension that they cannot even know the creator when they see it.

Meh.
We don't really create anything.
We reassemble things that already exist into different configurations.

That's what we see in the operation of the universe we're in. Things fall apart, things are assembled, things change in configuration. We don't really see anything come into creation. Thus the whole idea of a creator is just not looking terribly close at what's going on and inventing an easier explanation.

So, yeah, silly born of ignorance. Once that's understood, there's not much of a reason to hold out hope for any sort of creator to be necessary, or plausible. It's too different from what we actually see going on around us.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

Does one have to be omniscient in order to stop holding out the tiny possibility that Santa Claus exists?
Or can one maybe, I dunno, come to understand that it's a fiction invented for the purpose of manipulation, and a rather childish one at that? It doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, such as asking how one fat elf can visit ALL the households in a limited amount of time UNLESS one imagines more magic to tie up the loose ends.

Does that make sense or does anyone who's not omniscient have to say 'I am unsure' when asked if they believe that there's a jolly elf at the North Pole?

Can you see any way that this process might apply to the question of the various gods offered by mankind, most of whom seem to be human beings writ large but not terribly well...?

 

[Kharakov]

There is no sense talking about a "god in general"; that's just an apologist's trick to avoid being pinned down and having to defend their absurd claims. There are as many different and often contradictory claims about god as there are believers - there is no 'god in general', to suggest such a thing is an failure of reason.

That's what the Freemasons do when they refer to  The Great Architect of the Universe.... or so I've read.

From what I've read (that toes the party line), a lot of the structure and energy in the universe comes from one source: spacetime- gravity (or GR) being a description of one of its actions. Say we find that its steady general relativistic action guarantees that intelligent lifeforms will have energy from it at their disposal even after the stars die, as long as we engage in colossal scale engineering projects. Is this just another lucky fluke for intelligent beings or is it part of a great architect's scheme of beginning the questioning?


What if we find that an incorrect view of GR has been sown among the masses to show that even prominent scientists will accept information from authorities and repeat it without question? Those who fail to learn from hissstory are doomed to repeat inflation.

I'm wondering, because of certain things about the alignment of pulsars and how spacetime/matter interactions might be tapped into for energy, if they were created by intelligent beings (or an intelligent being) to indicate directions of alignment of spacetime for quantum scale physics?? Weird thought, right?

 

[ryan]

There is no sense talking about a "god in general"; that's just an apologist's trick to avoid being pinned down and having to defend their absurd claims. There are as many different and often contradictory claims about god as there are believers - there is no 'god in general', to suggest such a thing is an failure of reason.

Another pathetic apologist's trick is concentrating on only one aspect of a purported God, in the hope that nobody notices that the same attributes and arguments you rely on in one context, are the ones you rule out when discussing the supposedly identical God in another context. You seem to have been hoodwinked by that failure of reason too.

Okay, apologists are tricky, got it. I thought we were talking about the typical definition of god, not a specific god.

There are no Gods. They exist only as fictions in the brains of people. There is no justification for attaching the 'god' label to the unknowns at the beginning of the universe, or indeed anywhere else. It is a pointless exercise, and frequently harmful.

You say: "We were talking about god. Then I used the term "creator". That should not have been an issue since the god we presumably would be talking about would be the creator of the universe." But that IS an issue - which God were we talking about? You haven't said; and it is critical to any discussion of whether that god is real. Which god is it, and what are its attributes, abilities, properties and desires? And how do you know?

I just thought it was weird that you didn't assume that the god I was talking about would also be a creator. Usually that is implied. Anyways, now we know.

The God of the largest Christian sect, Roman Catholicism, has a number of claimed traits that are incompatible with reality - so we can conclude that that God does not exist in reality. That implies that he did not create the universe, and the implication is robust without any reference at all to what we do or do not know about how the universe started - unless you wish to argue that a fictional character, that exists only in the imaginations of people, and has done so only for at most a couple of millennia, is part of the category of 'possible creators for the universe'. You might as well suggest that Harry Potter created the universe - it's just as reasonable.

Please read my last post. God would set the stage however it wants, including Satan or some evil demon.

Of course, you might pick the different God described by one or other of the Protestant Christian sects; or one of the Islamic or Jewish sects; but all of these are just differing interpretations of a wider fan-fiction based on the same fictional character - they disagree on what is or is not canon, but they all draw on the same set of source material.

no, not really

We don't need to know jack-shit about cosmology to be certain that a fictional character is not the creator of the real universe.

You were the one using cosmology as an argument against god. I simply responded.

If you want to claim that God is exactly as likely as a candidate for a possible creator of the universe as Captain Ahab, Harry Potter, or Luke Skywalker, then I will agree with you. But while people mention God in this context without also mentioning these, and an infinity of other candidates, I will call bullshit. God has the same place in this argument as Yoda. And as Mad Max. And as Third Stormtrooper (opening battle sequence).

There are very small reasons and intuitions that god exists, but nothing says whether or not god is Yoda.

 

[bilby]

Okay, apologists are tricky, got it. I thought we were talking about the typical definition of god, not a specific god.

That's your response to me pointing out that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'typical definition of god'??

The word 'god' has so many different and contradictory meanings as to be valueless, other than as a way to hide bad ideas behind equivocation. The only way that it is possible to have a reasoned discussion that uses the word 'god' is to specify from the outset which of the myriad gods you are talking about. If you think you are talking about 'the typical definition of god', then I can say with certainty that you are not thinking very effectively at all.

There are very small reasons and intuitions that god exists, but nothing says whether or not god is Yoda.

Yoda being a fictional character says that Yoda does not exist.

Gods being fictional characters says that gods do not exist.

 

[ryan]

Okay, now imagine that it is one green man, and the green man simply always existed. It's not the most likely possibility, but it is hard to see how we can completely reject it.

I reject the assertion that such an individual qualifies as a god. Creation alone is not god-like enough for me, or for almost all of the world's theists - over 99.999% of gods ever described do a LOT more than just that.

Know the person you are talking to. Am I usually interested in talking about Jesus and how many animals could actually have fit on the arc, or do I like to engage in more of a neutral philosophical investigation. I would hope you would know me to do the latter.

And if we do assume his existence, for the sake of argument, then what? How does our assumption that the LGM exists help us to understand anything, to achieve anything, to do anything or think anything at all?

Let us assume a teapot in orbit around alpha centauri. Now what? What has this navel gazing assumption achieved that made it worth the effort to assume it? The centauran teapot is no less useful than the LGM. And neither qualifies as a god.

Though I strongly disagree that knowledge of the existence of god wouldn't be useful, meaningful or helpful, what difference does it make in this argument?

 

[skepticalbip]

That's what the Freemasons do when they refer to  The Great Architect of the Universe.... or so I've read.

.............snip..............

AHA! You got me.

Going to your link, I found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Architect_of_the_Universe

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name

...Good one...

 

[ryan]

That's your response to me pointing out that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'typical definition of god'??

The word 'god' has so many different and contradictory meanings as to be valueless, other than as a way to hide bad ideas behind equivocation. The only way that it is possible to have a reasoned discussion that uses the word 'god' is to specify from the outset which of the myriad gods you are talking about. If you think you are talking about 'the typical definition of god', then I can say with certainty that you are not thinking very effectively at all.

You are still going on about this? typical as in the usual/majority, Christianity, Islam, etc

There are very small reasons and intuitions that god exists, but nothing says whether or not god is Yoda.

Yoda being a fictional character says that Yoda does not exist.

Gods being fictional characters says that gods do not exist.

Well now you're not even trying.

 

[ryan]

Okay, now imagine that it is one green man, and the green man simply always existed. It's not the most likely possibility, but it is hard to see how we can completely reject it.

'Always existed' doesn't appear to relate with 'simply' because 'eternal' raises more questions than it answers (if anything)... if, rather than comfort, we are looking for actual explanations.

It seems just as strange for there to be an intelligent being that has always existed over a unintelligent being that always existed. At least in the former case there is something doing all of this on purpose instead of it just being here from an eternally unexplainable accident.

 

[ryan]

AHA! You got me.

Going to your link, I found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Architect_of_the_Universe

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name

...Good one...

The link is fake, but what he said is true. In fact it is a requirement to believe in god in order to become a Freemason. God is a major part of their foundation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are still going on about this? typical as in the usual/majority, Christianity, Islam, etc

Typical in whose experience? In what country? To what level of education or reading? I mean, yes, most of the people i knew growing up were either Mormon or Catholic, but by the time i graduated high school, i was aware of gods including the Norse tradition, Newhon, Babylonian, Egyptian, Cthulhu, Melnibonean... To me, the word 'god' means all SORTS of things, varying degrees of power, varying widths of influence, varying popularity... If you're going to use the term, you need to be clear on what you mean AND which ones you're excluding.

 

[atrib]

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

There is no need to disprove God because nothing we do in our day to day reality is apparently effected by it, and this creature cannot be bothered to show up or lift a finger to intervene no matter how hard people pray to it. The probability that God exists, as described in the various religious denominations that are prevalent today or were prevalent at some point in our history, is so infinitesimally small that it can be safely ignored without any consequences.

 

[skepticalbip]

AHA! You got me.

Going to your link, I found:



...Good one...

The link is fake, but what he said is true. In fact it is a requirement to believe in god in order to become a Freemason. God is a major part of their foundation.

Well, it is a requirement to at least pretend to believe to become a Freemason. It is not a requirement to actually believe. Pretty much like there is a requirement to at least pretend to believe to become a priest. I have known priests that will admit to not actually believing the Catholic line when talking to those who they know will not rat them out.