Yeah, this smells like god of the gaps with a ton of erroneous assumptions tossed in, just for fun.

I desided not to read it.

Over time I found out that any proof for God is bull shit.

I am still not convinced. There is no logical reason to believe that this was created. Formed?? yes, but not created.

The big bang was not the origin of matter and space. Just the structure of this universe. The big bang was just a collection of matter pulled in by gravity over time, then exploded out. The big bang would be happening all over space, creating multiple universes. Pulling in matter, blowing out. Doing the most destructive force in this universes job, gravity. 

No. 

No.

Yes. Just kidding... No.

You're a good guesser.

Wow. That's out of left field. Exlain how the fact that one didn't make the universe supports the world record setting logical triple jump to something else did.

Cool how you use therefor as if you are following a logical progression. Sadly, such is not the case. Because we know A to be untrue does not mean B is necessarily true. 

Hence, I like baseball.

Show me anything within the universe that was caused to exist. Come on, anything. Show me one single thing that isn't simply a rearrangment of matter or a conversion of matter to energy or energy to matter. You can't can you? Until you can to claim that everything that we now of exists due to a cause is wholly unsupported. In truth we know of nothing that is caused to exist. We simply know of things that are restructurings of already existing things.

We have already established that we have no reason to think the universe requires a cause in the above reply.

Secondly, there is no reason to think a universe formed by chance needs to be wholly chaotic. The ball analogy makes absolutely no sense in this situation. 

To make the ball analogy relevant we would have to state we should expect to see ball in the mark the ball left in the sand if you want to state that we should see events of chance (which, in actuallity, we do in the quantum world) in a universe formed of chance. If the ball only leaves a path that can be interpreted as having been made by a ball, then all we should draw from that (if anything) is that we should expect that the universe could be interpreted as having been formed by chance, which it can. 

Also, when you say that the universe is ordered you are looking at the universe from the perspective of one of its inhabitants which has evolved with the goal of survival. For such an inhabitant to survive it must be able to make predictions and be able to put a certain amount of trust in them. Evolving within this set of physical laws that exist in this universe your definition of an ordered universe is one that operates under the physical laws within which you evolved. You see, you call this universe ordered as ordered is  defined by your environment which is the universe.

Did I miss anything? 

Mathematics and logic do not exist in some platonic realm. Men (and some women  ) have data processors that we call brains. Math and logic are some of the ways our brains process information.

 Physical laws are simply the products of interactions. If there were no matter nor energy there would be no physical laws. The fact that matter and energy exist means that physical laws (the ways they act and interact) must exist as well.

You understand the universe in the way that a human understands the universe due to the way the human's mind has evolved. Your perception of this universe is wholly perspective reliant as you can only process the external stimuli you receive through the data processing unit available to humans, your bean. When you look at the universe you will see it as being set up for humans because we have come to understand it from our perspective. It is easy to allow this perspective based illusion to lead one to belief that human's are the reason for everything. This is why we tend to project ourselves onto it and call this projection a god.  

I can't understand c++ programming but sacrificing a goat while chanting to it won't bring me any closer.

Ahh, the joys of facetiousness.

And he hasn't even bothered to reply.

Sorry I have not had time to reply, I have been busy.

How do you know? Weather is a system. We observe this system, not from the point of origin, but already in progress.

If you say, "weather has logic", then you have already suggested an intelligence. Logic and order can not be produced from something random. It is either entirely random or it is not. For instance, if I roll a set of dice continuously, they may randomly make a sequence. However, this would not happen consecutively. For anything to be random, it would have the absence of logic. Therefore, if there is any order or logic in the universe, it cannot be random.

This question contradicts itself. There is no problem in a non-physical being creating a physical universe as the creator always exists on a plane above the created. Think of the virtual world inside computers. Does humanity exist inside the virtual world? No, we exist above and outside it. We wrote the code that causes the virtual world. As creators of the virtual, we may create a simulation of ourselves. In essence, we could create a virtual caricature that represents us. However, it would be impossible to exist within the virtual world as we are physical.

This discussion has nothing to do with religion as religion is a system of beliefs in a god or gods. This discussion is concerned with the presence or existence of a creator above or apart from our current existence.

We cannot discuss the identity of that creator as the creator exists outside the physical realm. Science can only go so far as to prove the existence of God, not the identity or makeup of God. The only way a person existing within the physical realm can know the identity of the creator is if God reveals it to Him. Otherwise, God is beyond our reach.

The overall point of this discussion is to show that science needs God. The whole basis of science lies in observation and analysis. The scientist seeks to study reality in truth. The scientist doesn’t makeup their findings. The scientist explores, theorizes, and draws conclusions. Therefore, science does not rely on humanity as the cause or source of reality.

Every claim that science makes is built upon other claims. You proved this in your post. You said, “We know weather has a cause, warm water rises as vapour from the tropical seas and create massive storms the effects of which travel thousands of miles causing various weather all over the world.” This truth is based upon another truth. Water has certain properties that cause it to vaporize when exposes to heat. Therefore, water has an existence, but what causes the existence of water? Once we conclude the cause of water, then what is the cause of that? And the cause of that? And the cause of that? We keep going until we find the “first cause.”

The “first cause” would be something that doesn’t need a cause because it is infinite (without a beginning or cause) and it is the cause of itself (meaning it is the basis for itself). We know the universe has a beginning (this has been scientifically proven), therefore, the universe cannot be the “first cause.”

Obviously, there is a “first cause” or else we could not prove anything. We prove something by reproducible results. If we can reproduce the results of the experiment, then it is proven. However, this is reliable only because we do not expect the results to change. Why? If the universe is random and happened by chance, then any theory “proven” by science could instantly change. This means we have proven nothing and no data is reliable. Rather, the entire foundation of science is built upon this premise that something exists within the universe as a “first cause” that does not change. It is truly infinite, without beginning or end.

To explain this in another way, every variable needs a constant to give it definition or else it doesn’t have an existence. For example, let’s think of this algebraically. The letter “X” is often used to denote a variable. The letter is simply a representation of an unknown constant. It is variable. It could be any number. What gives it definition? The constant it represents. “X=3” The constant gives the variable definition and existence. Otherwise, “X” doesn’t exist. It is just a representation of something else. Likewise, the entire universe is variable. It is continually changing and expanding. What then gives it definition? Anything that has a beginning has obviously experienced a change. What then exists apart from the universe that does not change and is constant?

We do not know what this “thing” is exactly. But, every time we perform an experiment, we prove it exists. We prove this because science assumes that results will not change due to a "first cause". 2+2 will always equal 4 because something exists that makes this true. Otherwise, if the universe happened by chance, then 2+2 could equal anything at any time. It could change. In this way, science needs a hypothesis for God. If we say, “There is no God,” then we have no grounds or basis to make any other claim.

And the winner is....Argument #2, the cosmological or first cause argument version 1.

And I quote:

(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Actually, it does mean that. And your suggestion that science proves god daily is false and unsupported. Science disproves god daily.

Obviously.

Self contradictory. If a non-constant was created by a constant than the constant is no longer constant as of the creation of the non-constant, making the constant suggestion impossible on multiple levels.

No there doesn't. Also, just because the laws of physics appear constant to us does not mean they will always be or always have been. We have recorded irregularly and uneducatedly on observations of existance for about 5000 years. Out of 13.5 billion years of the universes existance, and a completely unknown factor of time of existance itself.

Says who? You? Not remotely good enough. Demonstrate the universe is controlled. Go for it. You'll get a nobel prize I assure you.

The remainder of your post is based on a faulty and groundless premise, which was destroyed by proxy when I destroyed the origins of the erroneous conclusions.

Here's an incredibly simple question:

If God is infinite, why can't the Universe be infinite?

This whole arguement is absolutely stupid. It's no different than earlier theistic ideas of the world. I.E. Rain Gods and Love Gods and all that crap.

"If there is lightning, there MUST be a lightning God!" This is exactly how the Greeks, Romans, and other ancient peoples thought. The entire "There is a painting gives 'scientific proof' of a painter" is absolute garbage and holds no ground in modern conventional thinking UNLESS you are a theist.

Simply because we don't know what existed before the 'big bang' (or the expansion) does not mean that BEFORE this point stuff did not exist.

I should first start off by saying that I earned my MSc in physics and PhD in molecular biology, so I am a scientist and I spent a very long time studying the scientific method. It is clear to me that you know nothing about it.

1) This claim is a direct non sequitor from your premise. Science cannot prove the existence of God, because science can only deal in what has data or . This is why materialism is a fundamental assumption of science. You have made little more than a naked assertion, utterly unsubstantiated. You've made a premise, but you have made no points to back it up. An argument looks like this:

Premise:

Point:

Conclusion:

However, you are evidently a little confused as you have only completed step one

Premise: Science proves God

Claim 2)Another non sequitor, physical law does not indicate an entity which created such laws. This is a stolen concept fallacy. And it rings of TAG, since this is also what Bahnsen insisted. Need I remind you that your "solution" to the "problem" of the laws of logic existing is little more than skyhookery and unsubstantiated assertions. To postulate an entity "outside" of logic is a stolen concept fallacy. I showed that here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/7720

a) Not compatible with the scientific method, which invalidates your premise that science proves God. Science must presume that logic is all encompassing, otherwise it cannot make deductions. Actually, to state "outside of logic" at all is incoherent. Anyone with education in basic set theory should realize that.

Unfortunately, to state that evidence could turn up to invalidate the laws of nature is to reason in a circle.

Any evidence we gather must be based on such laws of nature, and to attempt to invalidate them is thusly to attempt to invalidate your own conclusion. Its a self-refuting concept, better known as a stolen concept.

The Laws of nature are axiomatic. The scientific method depends on them and them alone, nothing else. To state they could be falsified, or rather that something is outside them is to imply that they were gathered by experimentation. To imply they were gathered in such a way implies induction, when axiomatic logic is the epitome of deduction.

For example, when someone says that "God is outside the laws of nature" I always feel obliged to point out the following

Major Premise: God is outside the laws of nature

Minor Premise: Therefore, God's existence is not bound by any axiomatic law of nature, such as the law of non-contradiction.

Conclusion: Then God can exist and non-exist simultaneously, agreed?

To state that something could be "outside" natural laws is impossible, since by that same token, we should be able to draw the relationship via set theory. But since the box in this case would be existence itself, we would have to place God outside natural laws, and then he would not exist.

Quite simply, you are forgetting that science cannot and does not work with anything outside logic (outside logic is incoherent sicne "outside" implies sets, which is a logical concept). Anything outside logic is dismissed under the laws of parsimony. Where did you study the scientific method?

Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. To state that an intelligent entity created the universe is a stolen concept fallacy. Trust me, I spent hours studying the information/entropy laws, so I am versed in this. Read this to understand why:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

Please read it. don't pass over it thinking "Oh, fuck it, another link.

3) Again, to postulate an entity outside the laws of logic based on such an argument is to invalidate your own conclusion. I pointed this out at least a dozen times in the noncognitivism paper:

I wrote:

To claim God based on any a posteriori observations is a Pot/Kettle fallacy. By deducing (or usually inducing) a property of the natural world, one attempts to draw the existence of an entity which transcends these properties, not realizing this is hypocritical and a stolen concept fallacy. Everything needs a cause? In that case we will assert an “uncaused cause”, and they argue this with a straight face, not realizing this is a giant epistemic black hole. (It could be described as a “special pleading” fallacy). Same for design. Complex entities require design? In that case we will assert an “undesigned designer”. To invoke an entity which transcends natural laws based on observations of natural laws is a stolen concept fallacy which contradicts itself, seeing as the only way it could hold water as is to treat the induced laws as fixed, yet positing an entity which breaks these laws. This is a special pleading fallacy. There is no epistemology for concluding in the existence of a being transcendent of naturalism based on observations of naturalism, this, I hope everyone realizes, is hypocrisy of the highest degree. Invoking a law of logic merely to attempt to disprove said law of logic. This commits multiple logical fallacies: Stolen concept, Pot/Kettle, special pleading and circular reasoning. It just cannot be done. You would be attempting to disprove your own referent, which in turn would invalidate your conclusion.

A simple way to observe this is to write it in formal logic, as such:

Major Premise: All things need a cause
Minor Premise: Infinite Regress is not possible
Conclusion: There must have been a first cause, which is God

Which I always felt should be written like this:

Major Premise: All things need a cause
Minor Premise: Infinite Regress is not possible
Conclusion: There must have been a first cause
Absurd Conclusion: Which is God

Anyway, anyone should be able to blast a hole in it by pointing out that it invalidates itself. We can show this by rewriting it again
Major premise: There must be have been an uncaused cause
Minor Premise: Then not all things need a cause
Conclusion: If not all things need a cause, then a God is not required to break the infinite regress

The problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it is attempting to deduce a conclusion which is contradictory to its premise. If the conclusion is that there must have been a first cause, we are asserting that our premise (all things need a cause) is a falsehood, and then the whole argument is invalid.

So where did the universe come from? I discuss this in an essay called Lies, Damn lies, and Misconceptions about Ex Nihilo

A special kind of stolen concept fallacy is one in which the theist steals from naturalism by invoking an entity with properties that are necessarily natural (or at very least, for which there is certainly no, nor can there ever be, a positive ontology) and that the subsequence of the creation of this entity is necessary for the properties which apparently the “entity” itself holds. This is absurd. You can argue for a conscious creator of the universe not realizing that a universe is necessary for consciousness. You can argue for a sentient creator of matter, and not realize that matter is needed for sentience, you can argue for a…etc ad infinitum. The natural state of the universe in terms of complexity is bottom-up, not top-down.

Frankly, sir, thus far I am utterly unimpressed. You are twisting the scientific method to fit your own assumptions.

4) Why do you assume the universe requires conscious control. I've wrestled with quantum theory for a while, and there are several theories which suggest your premise (as a requisite for wavefunction collapse) however, I dislike that particular interpretation due to lack of parsimony

And the points I made above apply to this too. "Outside logic" means nothing.

5) False dilemma. I swear next to the phrase "breaking Occam's Razor, your picture will be smiling up at me. This hypothesis of yours is utterly incompatible with the scientific method. Furthermore, I do not believe that any physicist I know believes the universe to be a product of pure chance, however, your false dilemma would be to assume that in the abscence of divinity, chance rules. Clearly, you missed the day in the school where they covered basic probability theory.

This sounds distinctly like a rehash of all your other arguments, TAG-like whinings which suggest the laws of logic require accounting for, seeing as I have already pointed out the epistemic black hole in that, we can move on.

Also, if you are getting into an argument against evolutionary mechanisms, which it sounds as if you are, you should know I am vastly more qualified in biology than in physics, so I took the liberty of refutating that here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7918

6) Colossal stolen concept fallacy. This was already covered above. Read the M/I conjecture to understand why. You clearly are not versed in information/entropy, or you would realize that your statement resounds of appalling incoherencies. Let me explain to you how the scientific method works. The scientific method requires iron-hard stone-cold definitions and concepts, precisely laid down and carefully tested, based on tautologies that can be worded into truth tables. What you are offering is deliberate obscufication, broken concepts, statements without referents, notions which break the logic of set theory by positing "supernaturalism", which as I showed you, absolutely forced you to steal from naturalism. Even you could not avoid using words like "power" "entity" and "intelligence" without realizing these concepts are inherently naturalistic.

7) again, as I showed in the Matter/Information conjecture, clearly it is impossible for God to be intelligent. Please verse yourself in information/entropy. On how shamelessly this asurdity steals from naturalism I wrote:

I showed (in a treatise that got disappointingly few responses) that the conditions for which we are forced to accept for “God” are necessarily incompatible, or that such attributes are forced to steal from naturalism. It can be read here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

A summary of the concept would be:

I zeroed in on sentience, but it can be applied to any attribute we care to name, perhaps that the ancient prophets, ignorant of all things, thought to be less processes of natural cause and effect but rather phenomenon of the spirit, that we now recognize as falsehoods. Even if we granted (very leniently) the possibility of the notion of "non-material" despite the fact that this has no meaning, there is no attribute of classical theism which can coincide with it, especially classical theism, which describes God in anthropomorphic terms and concepts which are definitely empirically demonstratable to be physical. Omniscience? But surely "sight of any form requires photon processing which requires some sort of physical grounding at very least? What about notions like heaven and hell? Surely to be tortured forever in hell, you would need some sort of physical body, because pain is a neurochemical evolutionary function? Surely to even comprehend the notion of fire and brimstone, you would need to have physical sight? How can God have emotions like love and anger when these are chemically based?

These arguments all fall under one category. They accuse the existence of “God” of committing the stolen concept fallacy. Namely, a specific kind of stolen concept, positing an entity whose attributes require the existence of system which is subsequent to its existence. An example of this (albeit a very silly example) would be:

1. The Earth appears to be designed by intelligent entities
2. Humans are intelligent entities
3. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that humans built the Earth

The first example of a false a posteriori is to insist on God due to apparent design (seeing as entity capable of design merely posits the same questions which the designed entities do). Fixing design with design leads to an infinite regress of design.

Any a posteriori argument for God will and always will commit the stolen concept fallacy. It is reflection of a discredited philosophical school called "trickle-down creation", the notion that a constructed object has to be created by a constructer more complex than the constructed object. And yet, counterintuitevely, scientific philosophy goes in totally the opposite direction. The necessary creative intelligence to create objects and put the trickle-down theory into practice can only arise from evolution from simpler origins.

So to conclude this point, God as described would break this by committing the stolen concept fallacy, as it too would require design thusly leading to an infinite regress of designers. The more obvious solution is to reverse the equation, from long-since outdated top-down creation to the new, more sensible philosophy of bottom-up evolution, which is firmly established scientific fact from all fields of scientific discipline, I can confirm the solidity of this philosophy.

[A short digression]

A common criticism is that this is hypocritical. Clearly complex machines like jet engines and nuclear reactors are “designed”, so why is it that much more complex biological machines (myosin-driven molecular motors, rotating ion-gradient flagella, serine cascades, neurogenesis, transcription, to name a very small sample) do not need design? This is the basis of Ray Comfort’s, er, ahem, “arguments”, as well as many assertions by Intelligent Design proponents starting from William Paley and continuing today.

So what makes biological systems special? Why is it they, while very complex, do not need design, while jet engines do. The answer is evolution, of course. Biological systems are special because the very definition of a biological system is a chemical self-replicating system. The very notions of biology and blind-guided evolution are inherently linked, intertwined, forever joined. Systems of information which self-replicate with random errors non-randomly selected for accumulation of adaptive functions is the very basis of the whole of biology. Biological systems do not need design because the very concept of biology is fixed to that of the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators. Biology and evolution are lockstep concepts. Biology cannot exist without evolution. It needs no design, it cannot have design. The very notion of a designer is antithetical to the whole field of biology.

See this for a better explanation:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7918

[End of Digression]

Biological systems, arising from the “bottom-up” system of complexity, give rise to entities, like us, which can put into practice the trickle-down philosophy. This is why evolution is so seemingly counterintuitive, because we are very used to trickle-down creation. Yet this, as I have shown, is riddled with logical fallacies.

Likewise, the Cosmological argument also commits a prior requisite fallacy because to account for natural laws, it has to posit an entity which is not bound by natural laws, but any attempts to explain the existence of such an entity are ultimately incoherent (given especially that human epistemology is limited, obviously, to the natural world).

To take another example, the Kalam Cosmological argument, instead of appealing to infinite regress, appeals to universal cause. The universe could just as easily have not existed as opposed to existed (a statement which every physicist on the planet would decry as utter falsehood), the existence of the universe demands an explanation, according to Kalam (and Craig, who might as well be ghosting his spirit).

Yet to fix this intractable, they posit a solution which fixes no more problems than it creates further problems, all of which are defended as being inherently unknowable. Why should such an entity terminate the regress? The universe demands an explanation, thusly there is an entity of maximal intelligence and power not bound by the universe? Presumably this entity demands an explanation for its existence as well? Perhaps a better explanation considering that such a being is highly improbable? God runs in direct opposition to natural laws, which state that simplicity begets complexity. The complexity of the universe could only have sprung from simplicity, and complexity increases in accordance with natural laws that provide systems with free energy, better known as evolution. A creative intelligence, not bound by these laws, but being the solution which does not demand an explanation, not having started from simplicity, and working up, but always existing in maximally perfect form, is more improbable than the quantum tunneling prisoner experiment.

When we observe the universe’s history, it clearly goes from simple to complex, driven by free energy. Let us look at it in reverse order:

1. Consciousness
2. Eukaryotic life
3. Prokaryotic life
4. Terrestrial planets
5. Galactic clusters
6. Stellar formation
7. Plasma gas cooling
8. Hydrogenous ionization
9. Atomic organization
10. Universal expansion
11. Singularity collapse
12. Singularity state (literally ex nihilo)

Now, why not look at the same list, except with God inserted into it, in reverse order again?

1. Consciousness
2. Eukaryotic life
3. Prokaryotic life
4. Terrestrial planets
5. Galactic clusters
6. Stellar formation
7. Plasma gas cooling
8. Hydrogenous ionization
9. Atomic organization
10. Universal expansion
11. Singularity collapse
12. Singularity state (literally ex nihilo)
13. Consciousness

It’s absurd. Utterly absurd. Far from being an explanation of the universe, it merely creates superfluous epistemic baggage, unnecessary questions on the existence of the entity against the grain of natural law. So it should come as no surprise that it gets swiftly eliminated via Occam’s Razor.

Everything else is pure garbage. Quite simply utterly unsubstantiated assertions, like the unvirse requires some sort of lord and master to ensure everything is in order. I propose your hypthesis gets immediately eliminated by Occam's razor and posit instead that the universe simply exists, which is at least coherent and presumes far less. You commit so many special pleading fallacies (special pleading ie "God is not bound by this rule" that the parsimony of the explanation os overruled. Clearly you never took the time to study the concept of parsimony in the scientific methodm, since your implication is ultimately a hypothesis which science utterly cannot work with. Your premise and hopeless attempt to postulate otherwise via skyhookery fails disasterously. Saying "well, God is not bound by this rule" does not do. Every time you say this, you are counting a stroke against the parsimony of your argument, and since you did that about a dozen times, your argument is to be tossed int othe gutter. I pointed this out many times in the noncognitivism treatise.

10) False dilemma. The laws of logic are absolute. To say otherwise is stolen concept (breaks set theory). Todangst was the one who wrote on that here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe

uh uh, the sequence is pushed into order by external parameters. The number of dice you have is an external parameter of the sequence so forget escaping the notion of parameter it need not have a definition other than the mere number of variables for order to eventually occur.