Was there a First God?

[_ozemc]

Please read first. If you will note my quote actually begins with "If you believe in God" ...

Therefore, I was NOT claiming to know anything about the nature of God, of even if there is one, and was refering to the ideas and claims that have been written about God throughout the ages.

Specifically, I was putting forth the argument that we CAN'T know the nature of God, or if there is one, by what is written here.

Obviously, you don't believe in a God.

As to your idea of what this planet really is, I think I'll defer to science and what we can see and take measurements of. I guess you're kind of caught in the existential stuff we did back in college.

You know, the old "We could just be in a dust cloud, or it's all just someone's dream, or ...".

Your idea here is simply something you've conceived of in your head as to what god would have to be in order to be who you think he must be, but that has nothing to do with reality.

So again, have fun with your "my idea of god is more accurate than your idea" idea. But on this, you (and everybody else) don’t have a clue except to say that the chances of a god’s existence are practically nil.

Interesting.

You complain about someone's argument that "my idea of god is more accurate than your idea" and then you turn around and do the same thing by saying that "my idea of no god is better than your idea of a god."

Like you said, no one really knows for sure, do we?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Huh? Um... yeah. You accuse me of not reading your post and then proceed to fully demonstrate that you barely glanced at mine. I see. (Either that or your reading comprehension has serious issues all by itself. I won't stake a claim either way). Are you sure you really want to call hypocrisy here?

And then you go on to back track on the things you'd previously claimed and decided to maintain your blind spots at all costs. Sweet.

I could go into a list of the ways in which you misread my post and demonstrated inconsistencies, but then you'd likely misread this post, and then I'd have to re-explain it, and where would it all end?

Oh, I guess probably with you still believing your way, and me believing mine.

[_Some Schmo]

Oh, I guess probably with you still believing your way, and me believing mine.

Without a doubt.

I'll feel good knowing that science actually backs up what I believe, however.

[_ozemc]

Oh, I guess probably with you still believing your way, and me believing mine.

Without a doubt.

I'll feel good knowing that science actually backs up what I believe, however.

Really?

Science backs up the idea of no god?

I always thought science didn't take a view one way or the other. It just is.

How can science prove there's no god?

[_Some Schmo]

Really?

Science backs up the idea of no god?

I always thought science didn't take a view one way or the other. It just is.

How can science prove there's no god?

There's a difference between backing something up and proving something.

No, science can't prove there's no god any more than it can prove there's no Santa Claus. However, science has never been a fan of ideas that assert things exist that can't be proven (which is why the burden of proof is always on the person making the case for existence). And given what science has learned about the nature of the universe, evolution and the lack of provable supernatural things in the universe (like god), the probability of a god by science's standards are, as I said before, almost nil. There's just no evidence for it. If god were natural, maybe we might get somewhere, but that would actually make him even less likely than he already is as a supernatural entity.

It's a common fallacy to think that, because you can't prove it one way or the other, the argument for god and the argument for no god are equal. They aren't even close. That's exactly like saying that because you can't prove it one way or the other, the argument for Santa Claus and the argument for no Santa Claus are equal. No sane, intelligent adult would make that argument, nor should they for god.

EDIT: And while I'm thinking about it, it's apples and oranges to compare arguing about the nature of something made up to arguing whether the made up thing exists or not. Making that comparison is just plain silly.

[_ozemc]

Really?

Science backs up the idea of no god?

I always thought science didn't take a view one way or the other. It just is.

How can science prove there's no god?

There's a difference between backing something up and proving something.

No, science can't prove there's no god any more than it can prove there's no Santa Claus. However, science has never been a fan of ideas that assert things exist that can't be proven (which is why the burden of proof is always on the person making the case for existence). And given what science has learned about the nature of the universe, evolution and the lack of provable supernatural things in the universe (like god), the probability of a god by science's standards are, as I said before, almost nil. There's just no evidence for it. If god were natural, maybe we might get somewhere, but that would actually make him even less likely than he already is as a supernatural entity.

It's a common fallacy to think that, because you can't prove it one way or the other, the argument for god and the argument for no god are equal. They aren't even close. That's exactly like saying that because you can't prove it one way or the other, the argument for Santa Claus and the argument for no Santa Claus are equal. No sane, intelligent adult would make that argument, nor should they for god.

EDIT: And while I'm thinking about it, it's apples and oranges to compare arguing about the nature of something made up to arguing whether the made up thing exists or not. Making that comparison is just plain silly.

Well, I will agree that equating God with Santa Claus is just plain silly.

So, once again, you make the claim that God is just "made up".

Basically, your argument is that "my idea of no god is better than your idea of a god." And you're very condescending and elitist about it, even to the point of questioning the sanity of those that would believe it, using your Santa Claus analogy (not really a very good one, in my opinion).

I know, these poor dumb idiots who actually believe there might be something, or someone, that created all this. How stupid of us, right? I guess we don't have the scientific training that you have or your particular insight.

I would argue that all of what we've learned about how the universe works, the immense distances involved, how evolution works, etc. all point to a creator. I just can't see how it could all happen by accident. It seems too methodical. Could I be wrong? Sure.

The point is, no one can possibly know completely, one way or the other. Science no more discredits the idea of god than it can claim it.

It all boils down to faith.

I have faith that there is a creator. Can I prove it? No. Am I absolutely sure? No.

You have faith that there is no god. Can you prove it? No. Can you be absolutely sure? No.

We both hope we're right, but we'll never completely know 100%. At least not in this lifetime.

[_Gorman]

First I know factually that space has no end to it....

Man has reached out in space (with telecopes of course) so far that it would take man 2 billion years traveling at 186,000 miles per second to reach it and yet we still would not have covered in comparison then one drop of water in the Atlantic Ocean...

grampa75

I think the fact that we see lots of Galaxies a long ways away does not require that space is infinite in the sense that you are discussing. It would be possible that the universe is only infinite in 3 dimensions, but finite in others. A sphere is infinite for a two-dimensional being on its surface (or a limited 3-D being) because it can choose one direction and walk for eternity. It is therefore possible that the universe "wraps around" somehow and we can see infinitely far, but it is still finite in some way. It could then be feasible to look at a particular point through a telescope and see the planet Earth (this depends on the spacial dimensions, we may have to look far enough away that by the time the light got to us our solar system wouldn't have been "born" yet).

As to your question about a first God, the LDS view (although some object to this) states that God once was like humans in the past. If this is the case, then achieving the "rank" of God happens at some point on their time line. The LDS call humans Gods as well, but just in a nascent form without the same abilities. In this sense there was never a "first God", but it appears that there would necessarily be a first "human" to achieve the "rank" of God. How this would even be possible is the 20 dollar question. This, of course, would be easy to explain if time is fundamentally different "there" when compared to what we are used to "here", in that events don't necessarily happen one after the other (this of course would seem to cause lots of other problems).

[_Gorman]

In the Book of Moses we can read a dialog between Moses and God, God tells Moses, "The worlds I have created are without number to man, but they are numbered unto me because I know them for they are mine."

grampa75

I agree with AsbestosMan. I don't think God is necessarily talking about infinity here. He could just be talking about a really big number that Moses can't comprehend or count.

[_Gorman]

There's a difference between backing something up and proving something.

No, science can't prove there's no god any more than it can prove there's no Santa Claus. However, science has never been a fan of ideas that assert things exist that can't be proven (which is why the burden of proof is always on the person making the case for existence). And given what science has learned about the nature of the universe, evolution and the lack of provable supernatural things in the universe (like god), the probability of a god by science's standards are, as I said before, almost nil. There's just no evidence for it. If god were natural, maybe we might get somewhere, but that would actually make him even less likely than he already is as a supernatural entity.

It's a common fallacy to think that, because you can't prove it one way or the other, the argument for god and the argument for no god are equal. They aren't even close. That's exactly like saying that because you can't prove it one way or the other, the argument for Santa Claus and the argument for no Santa Claus are equal. No sane, intelligent adult would make that argument, nor should they for god.

EDIT: And while I'm thinking about it, it's apples and oranges to compare arguing about the nature of something made up to arguing whether the made up thing exists or not. Making that comparison is just plain silly.

I do not agree with the part in bold. Science can attempt to predict outcomes, but it is not in the business of saying whether God exists or not (metaphysics). It is not even in the business of saying fundamentally how nature works (although it would appear that nature works by mathematics and some of the laws we have discovered, but that is just the simplest possibility as it appears to us).

Science only works with the outcomes of specific experiments and the prediction of future outcomes, a metaphysical elephant can hide in any uncertainty in scientific theory or experiments.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, I will agree that equating God with Santa Claus is just plain silly.

I never said that. Again, you misread.

So, once again, you make the claim that God is just "made up".

Of course the god idea is made up. Nobody can prove they've seen him or that he exists, therefore, it follows that he was, at some point, made up. Lots of gods have been made up over the centuries (Zeus, Aries, Poseidon, etc). It's not my idea that he was made up. He just was. Even you said we don't know what god is, so whatever anyone attributes to a creator is made up, as is the creator itself.

Basically, your argument is that "my idea of no god is better than your idea of a god." And you're very condescending and elitist about it, even to the point of questioning the sanity of those that would believe it, using your Santa Claus analogy (not really a very good one, in my opinion).

Again, it's not an idea. God, in all his separate incarnations, was made up. There is no proof otherwise. If you can't prove he exists (or anything else, for that matter), the default position to take is that he doesn't.

Sorry (well, not really) that you don't like the style of my delivery of this message, but it's just a tad annoying that people equate probabilities of existence with probabilities of nonexistence when they simply aren't equal given the available evidence. The Santa Claus analogy is absolutely perfect in demonstrating the fallacy of equating probabilities of existence and nonexistence.

I know, these poor dumb idiots who actually believe there might be something, or someone, that created all this. How stupid of us, right? I guess we don't have the scientific training that you have or your particular insight.

I would argue that all of what we've learned about how the universe works, the immense distances involved, how evolution works, etc. all point to a creator. I just can't see how it could all happen by accident. It seems too methodical. Could I be wrong? Sure.

I don't know that I'd characterize all that believe in a creator as dumb idiots as much as I'd attribute it to poor training, lazy thinking, indoctrination and conditioning, and a measure of ignorance of the facts about evolution and the nature of the universe. What I will say is that if the proper information and training was provided a person and they chose to *really* think about it... and they *still* came away from it with a belief in god, then yeah... dumb idiot.

There are several examples in nature where planning is clearly not present, and no supposed "evidence" of real forethought exists, but I notice that people who do believe in a "planner" tend to ignore those.

The point is, no one can possibly know completely, one way or the other. Science no more discredits the idea of god than it can claim it.

It all boils down to faith.

I have faith that there is a creator. Can I prove it? No. Am I absolutely sure? No.

You have faith that there is no god. Can you prove it? No. Can you be absolutely sure? No.

We both hope we're right, but we'll never completely know 100%. At least not in this lifetime.

I don't have any faith at all that there's no god. It doesn't require faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Do I need faith to not believe in the tooth fairy, orcs, goblins, the Easter bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster? No. Do I know they don't exist? No, but their probability or existence is extremely low, based on the evidence. It's not that difficult a concept, really.

Does it take faith to feel confident about walking through a wall that doesn't exist without hurting myself? Of course not. Well... what if most people in the world tell you the wall is there but you just can't see it? Does it still take faith? Perhaps, but only to disagree with them, not that the wall doesn't exist. If you're making a case that it takes faith to disagree with a whole bunch of people, I'd buy that, but that's not the same as having faith there is no god.

While I understand your agnostic point of view (I was an agnostic for a very long time myself), I think it's mostly based on a feeling your comfortable with and not on what the evidence around us really says.

And given the fact that you seem to be lost on what you perceive as my delivery and are avoiding the main message, I’m not sure why I wrote all this, except to say that it was purging for me.

[_ozemc]

Well, I will agree that equating God with Santa Claus is just plain silly.

I never said that. Again, you misread.

So, once again, you make the claim that God is just "made up".

Of course the god idea is made up. Nobody can prove they've seen him or that he exists, therefore, it follows that he was, at some point, made up. Lots of gods have been made up over the centuries (Zeus, Aries, Poseidon, etc). It's not my idea that he was made up. He just was. Even you said we don't know what god is, so whatever anyone attributes to a creator is made up, as is the creator itself.

Basically, your argument is that "my idea of no god is better than your idea of a god." And you're very condescending and elitist about it, even to the point of questioning the sanity of those that would believe it, using your Santa Claus analogy (not really a very good one, in my opinion).

Again, it's not an idea. God, in all his separate incarnations, was made up. There is no proof otherwise. If you can't prove he exists (or anything else, for that matter), the default position to take is that he doesn't.

Sorry (well, not really) that you don't like the style of my delivery of this message, but it's just a tad annoying that people equate probabilities of existence with probabilities of nonexistence when they simply aren't equal given the available evidence. The Santa Claus analogy is absolutely perfect in demonstrating the fallacy of equating probabilities of existence and nonexistence.

I know, these poor dumb idiots who actually believe there might be something, or someone, that created all this. How stupid of us, right? I guess we don't have the scientific training that you have or your particular insight.

I would argue that all of what we've learned about how the universe works, the immense distances involved, how evolution works, etc. all point to a creator. I just can't see how it could all happen by accident. It seems too methodical. Could I be wrong? Sure.

I don't know that I'd characterize all that believe in a creator as dumb idiots as much as I'd attribute it to poor training, lazy thinking, indoctrination and conditioning, and a measure of ignorance of the facts about evolution and the nature of the universe. What I will say is that if the proper information and training was provided a person and they chose to *really* think about it... and they *still* came away from it with a belief in god, then yeah... dumb idiot.

There are several examples in nature where planning is clearly not present, and no supposed "evidence" of real forethought exists, but I notice that people who do believe in a "planner" tend to ignore those.

The point is, no one can possibly know completely, one way or the other. Science no more discredits the idea of god than it can claim it.

It all boils down to faith.

I have faith that there is a creator. Can I prove it? No. Am I absolutely sure? No.

You have faith that there is no god. Can you prove it? No. Can you be absolutely sure? No.

We both hope we're right, but we'll never completely know 100%. At least not in this lifetime.

I don't have any faith at all that there's no god. It doesn't require faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Do I need faith to not believe in the tooth fairy, orcs, goblins, the Easter bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster? No. Do I know they don't exist? No, but their probability or existence is extremely low, based on the evidence. It's not that difficult a concept, really.

Does it take faith to feel confident about walking through a wall that doesn't exist without hurting myself? Of course not. Well... what if most people in the world tell you the wall is there but you just can't see it? Does it still take faith? Perhaps, but only to disagree with them, not that the wall doesn't exist. If you're making a case that it takes faith to disagree with a whole bunch of people, I'd buy that, but that's not the same as having faith there is no god.

While I understand your agnostic point of view (I was an agnostic for a very long time myself), I think it's mostly based on a feeling your comfortable with and not on what the evidence around us really says.

And given the fact that you seem to be lost on what you perceive as my delivery and are avoiding the main message, I’m not sure why I wrote all this, except to say that it was purging for me.

No, I quite understand the message: There is no god.

I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on this one.

I'm glad I was able to help you "purge". Sometimes we've just got to get it all out.