A Challenge

[Paleface2500]

Here are some interesting facts that support my belief in God.

1. Newton’s 1st law states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and that an object in uniform motion tends to stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by a net external force.
2. Newton’s 3rd law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
3. Science has concluded that the universe is expanding.


If 3 is true, then a logical person would have to conclude that the universe is finite and had to begin somewhere. If we take Newton’s 1st and 3rd law into account then we have to ask ourselves, "what set the universe in motion?" I believe the answer you’re looking for is God. Go ahead and chew on this for a while. Disprove this and you will only be discrediting science and the foul able human beings in which you put your soul and so much faith in anyways.

[rcne]

What we don't understand has always been attributed to God. Its easy to be a non-thinker that way.

You try to use science to prove what you find convenient. Good plan. Explain unicorns thumper.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Paleface2500 Disprove this and you will only be discrediting science and the foul able human beings in which you put your soul and so much faith in anyways.

Your argument corresponds to the claim of Aquinas and Aristotle of a Prime Mover and natural theology's cosmological arguments. However, I still think that people can sufficiently object to your argument, just as you make take it as sufficient evidence to warrant theistic belief. Sufficiency criteria are unclear, though.

There might not be a Prime Mover in the form of God, for instance; it could be a Big Bang. Also, just because God was there to first move the universe doesn't mean that He still exists. There also might not be a first mover at all, and we might be dealing with an infinite regression of causality. We can also object to causality by applying the concepts of quantum physics.

Nonetheless, I believe in God through faith as an agnostic theist since neither side can be proven in perfect sufficiency.

[Jack]

Let's pretend I accept your reasoning. Which god would you suggest did this; Vishnu, Thor, an alien who appears to us to be a god? You've supplied a non-specific non-answer. "God" gives us no more insight, no more knowledge than if the question went unanswered, which ironically is the scientist's answer. We just don't know yet.

[Gods_Mercenary]

You can't use science to prove God, it's as simple as that.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Paleface If we take Newton’s 1st and 3rd law into account then we have to ask ourselves, "what set the universe in motion?" I believe the answer you’re looking for is God.

God of Gaps is no less fallacious when preceded by scientific knowledge.

[Paleface2500]

Quote "You can't use science to prove God, it's as simple as that"

And why not? People always use science to disprove religion, why not use it to prove it?

[Gods_Mercenary]

How can you use science to prove something that, if it exists, created and is above science?

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy God of Gaps is no less fallacious when preceded by scientific knowledge.

Hmmm.... I see. You have failed to answer anything.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary How can you use science to prove something that, if it exists, created and is above science?

Because no matter how hard we try we can never figure everything out. I just use the excess rope that science uses to hang itself, against them.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Doesn't work though, because anyone reasonable will just say that science of course doesn't know everything, and that the answer will soon be discovered.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Paleface2500 If 3 is true, then a logical person would have to conclude that the universe is finite and had to begin somewhere.

No, it could logically be that the universe is simply expanding. Increasing in size. Why do you conclude the universe has no parameters simply because it is expanding? Is it not logical to conclude that IF the universe is finite.. the parameters are simply growing? OR the parameters are very large and there is much room for the cosmos to expand?

Also, many many philosophers believe that the universe extends into itself with the help of other dimensions.

The best way I can explain this is an ant on a piece of paper.

Imagine the ant and the piece of paper is two dimensional. That shouldn't be hard to imagine since it's relatively flat.

The ant could obviously reach one end of the piece of paper and be forced to stop. The piece of paper is now finite.

Now imagine the 3rd dimension. The 3rd dimension wraps the 2nd dimension through 3rd dimension space and twist the piece of paper to meet one end to another - COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the 2nd-dimension-ant. The ant can now walk and walk from one point all the way around the entire length of the paper (front and back (the paper is twisted as well as bent)) and reach the same point it started at.

Many philosophers believe this is true for the universe.

Please watch this flash animation to better understand multiple dimensions.
Imagining the Tenth Dimension - A Book by Rob Bryanton
Move your mouse over Navigation and click "Imagining the tenth dimension."

Quote by: Paleface2500 If we take Newton’s 1st and 3rd law into account then we have to ask ourselves, "what set the universe in motion?"

Why a god? Why your god? Why a man-made god?

Why not nature?

There are plenty of philosophical explanations, mind you, that soundly explain this without the need for gods.

Such as a universe that expands and implodes due to gravity. Perhaps the universe is on a cycle of expansion and implosion that has lasted for an eternity.

Such as a super string theory that claims that our universe was created by a collision of other-dimension fibers. These fibers could also be infinite.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Paleface Hmmm.... I see. You have failed to answer anything.

Look up God of Gaps and you'll see why it's fallacious. It's not my job to educate you.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I have no patience for your physics/philosophy lullaby, I like my answers simple ( not to mean it's wrong of course.)

[Jack]

Doesn't work though, because anyone reasonable will just say that science of course doesn't know everything

Exactly. Science makes no claims to posses an absolute truth or to have all the answers to all the possible questions.
By claiming god-did-it, you stifle any further exploration of those questions. If god, even as poorly defined as the concept is, is offered as the answer to every question science cannot yet explain, why should we even try to understand any further? It's the theological equivalent to answering every question with, "because". It adds nothing to our knowledge base.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Look up God of Gaps and you'll see why it's fallacious. It's not my job to educate you.

That must be code for (I lack a suitable base of knowledge to defend my argument and am therefore reluctant to answer any of your questions, please google it)

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, that's code for, most people probably realize what it means, if you don't, either look it up or stop debating..

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Paleface2500 Because no matter how hard we try we can never figure everything out. I just use the excess rope that science uses to hang itself, against them.

Wait one second.

You first tell me we can never figure everything out.

But you also say God is the answer to everything?

This is incredibly suspicious. It makes me think you've given up and resorted to man-made "God did it" solutions to questions that you should find romantically intriguingly and endlessly promising like every other reasonable rational scientist has.

"God did it" can be used to wrongly answer any question. Which is very depressing to society of capable minds.

Hell, why not "The flying spaghetti monster did it"? That wrongly answers your questions just as well as your god can.

Being too stupid to understand our world is no excuse to come up with an equally stupid explanation that covers up its own huge gaps.

I find it humorous you attribute all of these questions to your god.. when there are a million questions that can be asked when you place a trimax god into the picture. Though, like I said, your godly divine explanation is capable of covering up even its own flaws with "oh.. God is just to complicated for us to understand." WOAH.. and do you think maybe the universe could be too complicated for us to understand?

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Isherwood Exactly. Science makes no claims to posses an absolute truth or to have all the answers to all the possible questions. By claiming god-did-it, you stifle any further exploration of those questions. If god, even as poorly defined as the concept is, is offered as the answer to every question science cannot yet explain, why should we even try to understand any further? It's the theological equivalent to answering every question with, "because". It adds nothing to our knowledge base.

Im all for science. It just saddens me that the more intellegent people get, the less they believe. I believe god works through science and if you look hard enough, you will find him.

People shoot down God all the time. People tell me they won't believe because we lack proof that he exist. I say "believe because you lack proof that he does not exist".

[Gods_Mercenary]

By the way, welcome to Volconvo! I make it a point to try to push the new theists away from, let's just say, the KillerArgument course. You might have been better off picking a less hardcore thread to make your debut, though