A new argument for the existence of gods
Let me offer my two shekels in the gods debate. Consider the following argument.
-The universe is made from non-intelligent dead basic material
-Dead, non-intelligent basic material can't bring itself into existence. It's simply not smart enough.
-Conclusion: intelligent gods have brought the basic material into existence. They are the reason of existence, whatever that reason might have been.
The why question doesn't apply to the existence of gods, as eternal intelligences don't require another reason. How can dead stuff, out of which life evolved, just exist, even eternally, without a cause, or better, a reason for its existence? Letting it pop into existence by some "mindless spark", like brother @universeness suggested, seems almost the same as suggesting gods are the reason. Almost, as a mindless spark is the irrational alternative of gods with a reason.
Is my argument sound? Can we say it's a proof even?
-The universe is made from non-intelligent dead basic material
-Dead, non-intelligent basic material can't bring itself into existence. It's simply not smart enough.
-Conclusion: intelligent gods have brought the basic material into existence. They are the reason of existence, whatever that reason might have been.
The why question doesn't apply to the existence of gods, as eternal intelligences don't require another reason. How can dead stuff, out of which life evolved, just exist, even eternally, without a cause, or better, a reason for its existence? Letting it pop into existence by some "mindless spark", like brother @universeness suggested, seems almost the same as suggesting gods are the reason. Almost, as a mindless spark is the irrational alternative of gods with a reason.
Is my argument sound? Can we say it's a proof even?
Comments (50)
It's the opposite. The universe satisfies my cause-effect scheme, and because the cause-effect scheme can't explain it's own existence, there has to be a non-causal reason for it's existence, i.e. ,gods
Not true.
But how did it create itself? What intelligence matter particles have to create themselves?
There was no creation.
How do you know?
How do you know there was? Just a Christian dogma.
So the universe exists without a reason? All life exists without a reason?
Im no Christian. I dont believe in God.
That's nice.
How you know there wasn't? Scientific dogma tells you that.
What science says the world always existed?
Why did you assume Im a Christian?
Quoting Jackson
Then it still needs a reason it exists.
If the universe always existed then why does it need a reason?
There might not be a first cause, but there just has to be a reason for life. To think not is irrational.
Why does there have to be a reason?
Because I believe in rationallity, the ratio. And non-intelligent particles in a quantum vacuum are too stupid to have come into existence by themselves.
Yes, and this I contest.
What intelligence has a particle? How it creates itself out of the blue, even if eternal?
The fact that the universe seems to your mind to satisfy your cause-effect scheme does not mean that your mental scheme expresses entirely how everything works. This is the mistake made by Russell's inductivist turkey.
I reject the logic of creation.
Why not?
No. No.
Quoting Hillary
Yes. Yes.
NB: The only "reason for existence" that does not beg the question (i.e. an infinite regress) – that is rational – is that there is no reason for existence.
1. Creatio ex nihilo (Deus/Fluke): Nothing [math]\to[/math] Something
2. Biological: Inanimate [math]\to[/math] Animate
3. Psychological: Animate [math]\to[/math] Consciousness
---
Posited 4[sup]th[/sup] Revolution
4. Transcendence (Nirvana/Deus/etc.): Consciousness [math]\to[/math] ? Sabrá Mandrake!
No reason begs the question just as well. Why is there no reason? Why exist the universe and life in it without reason? Why is the universe irrational? Because its irrational? Even more irrational. The only rational explanation is gods, who don't need further reason to exist.
Performative contradiction.
A reason a performative contradiction? I would say the lack of reason is an explosive irrationality. The gods could just gather globally and collectively speak the word. The logos was created.
Why can't the material world exist eternally (ie at all times, even if the past is finite)? This doesn't entail "popping into existence", it means never NOT existing.
You could push away the popping into existence to an infinite past, but that doesn't mean the universe wasn't created. The 4d structure on which two 3d universes inflate (emerge) periodically, is itself no subjected to thermodynamic time. The structure fluctuates in time and is too dumb to create it's own existence. To say its an eternal structure makes sense only from the emergent thermodynamic, unidirectional time perspective, as experiences in the two universes emerging on it periodically (each new pair with a new beginning in time). The question is: who the fuck made that 4d structure? Answer: gods created it to run a material version of the eternal etherical heaven on. In one big bang after another. Maybe there just was a first big bang, maybe we live in the zillionth...
So, I haven't received any of these burning physics questions you claim you have that physicists have so far refused to answer. I don't understand your delay, since your claim suggests these questions were created a long time ago so it's not like you would need time to form one of them.
Your credibility has diminished further imo.
I withdraw my offer to pose one of your 'burning' questions to the physicists who have answered my questions previously on Quora.
Check your mail... We were writing at the same time!
Of course we were :roll: Anyway, I like to give people a little rope. Let's see!
We were! I just saw you were online!
Plausible yes but I don't see why I had to be online at the moment you send a PM with a physics question. I would have noticed the PM as soon as I came online.
So I should have written it immediately after the offer? "The offer stands for 12 hours only!"?
Follow-up time is very important when others offer to assist you.
Especially when your credibility is already compromised Mr roleplaying athiest.
You are the roleplaying atheist. What credibility you talk about? Not being "peer reviewed" or an article on my name? Well, then you're credible...
:down:
Is that all you got, Caesar?
The most shallow vessels make the loudest noise.
You are lost!
On the contrary! Im found! And ahead of my time, insofar physics is concerned.
Quoting HillaryIf indeed the arrow of time is associated with thermodynamics, this doesn't preclude a (thermodynamically) static quantum system from being the fundamental basis from which it emerges.
[U]Something[/u] is uncreated. IMO, it's more plausible to think that intelligence emerged gradually, rather than existing uncaused in a complete form, because intelligence implies a great deal of organization.
Precisely. One cannot say time runs forward or backwards in such a primordial state.
Yes. The universe is uncreated if you turn time backwards. But then a new appears at the same time at infinity, running back to the central singularity.
Intelligence evolved slowly, but tthe life that slowly evolved is the material version of eternal heavenly life.
Awesome argument.
But how do you deal with theory of evolution?
Theory of evolution claims life come out of water, which is a non intelligent material.
If we exclude animals and humans and assume there is none for now, then plants are living but non-intelligent.
I think they made the basics. If all life in heaven took part in the development, research, and finally creation of the particles with the right properties, in the right spacetime, all intelligences, all life, could evolve in the right way to give rise to all life, and every eternal god could have a counterpart in the temporary divine material version in the material universe. The big bang could bang periodically, to let life develop (which scientists call evolution) again and again, so the eternal gods could watch them over and over again. A reason for creation could be that boredom or and existential void hit the heavens... :starstruck:
One problem is that big bang is modern theory of universe, therefore a God which is the creator of big bang (or a series of big bangs) does not fit into any of the revelations about God that we have today.
In other words with such hypothesis you're creating a new religion.
Believe it or not, but I had a truly amazing dream. Maybe it were the gods themselves who made me dream, or maybe it was my unconsciousness in action, but I saw thousands of creatures working together and when they had found the solution they magically turned the particles real. And the universe was born. And the first bang banged... The standard view on god is an archaic outdated, old-fashioned one.
I find your argument in OP compelling because, the only thing that could make it wrong is biological phenomena of how intelligent life come to existence, out of water.
A good thing is that life out of water can't be reproduced with all the technological advancements we have.
I think it's either biological phenomena or God, but how to construct arguments on these 2 hypothesis is beyond my imagination.
Good observation. Not one single lifeform can be produced in a lob. Not even a virus.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Life evolving naturally was the intention of the gods. The only thing they had to create was a rightly structured 4d quantum vacuum, containing the right virtual particles (which differ from real ones in the sense that they have all momenta and energies, as independent variables). Just create that and two universes bang into existence automatically. Again and again. As planned. We are doomed to dance for the gods over and over. But I don't mind!