Do you believe the universe needed a deity to exist and why?
Not necessessarily a deity based on any particular type of religion.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
74 Answers
No one has ever demonstrated a logical necessity for the universe needing a god to exist.
No one has ever produced evidence for the existence of a god, either.
So the answer is “no”.
Agree with what @ragingloli said—no.
That said, ‘twas Shakespeare who wrote, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
I believe one should believe whatever he/she wishes as long as they don’t tell me to agree.
No. All empirical observation has never once demonstrated the need for any deity’s intervention in the Universe.
Yes. Only a supreme being could create a universe that has no explanation as to why it exists, where it came from or what or who created it. IMO everything has an explanation as to is origins but no one has yet come close to explaining who lit the fuse on the big bang…so until then I am holding that deity thingy responsible.
@Cruiser
Argument from Ignorance.
“I don’t know, therefore God”
No. Of course not.
For some reason, this seems to be the answer to so many things. There is no invisible hand making this move the way it does. It’s all physics.
Define “deity”... Give two examples… and then we’ll talk.
@ragingloli Argument from science: I don’t know, therefore no.
It isn’t the universe that needed a deity, but certain of its occupants require one in order to have a place to lay the responsibility for things they don’t understand.
@Dutchess_III Your example demonstrates a visible hand starting the process.
I define a deity as a higher intelegence who is responsible as a first cause of the universe’s existence.
Can you provide an example of such a being?
The God deists believe in would be one possible example of this concept.
That’s an example of someone’s belief. It’s not an example of the being.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Well, what if an earth quake had started the process? There are a million things that can give the same impetus and energy as a human hand.
To prevent us talking past one another, you should probably define what you mean by “universe” as well. Are you talking about the visible physical reality, sun, moon, stars… or the quantum realm where physics tells us that nothing really exists at all?
And from these perceived realities, where does meaning arise? Are emotions like fear and joy real agents also a part of the “universe”? If they are, and the universe had no creator, then the universe has also become emotional with no cause. The concept of uncaused realities is deeper than just the physical dimensions that we are immediately aware of.
@Dutchess_III Hard to base an answer on “what if”.
@Darth_Algar ” All empirical observation has never once demonstrated the need for any deity’s intervention in the Universe.”
Place a 2016 Corvette in the middle of an ant hill. The ants may be capable of observing the phenomenon, yet still be incapable of conceiving what it really is, or that it was created by methods beyond their understanding.
@ragingloli Have you by any chance read your own answer?
“No one has ever demonstrated a logical necessity for the universe needing a god to exist. No one has ever produced evidence for the existence of a god, either.”
Argument from Ignorance.
“I cannot offer proof otherwise, therefore no because I have no better answer”
@Cruiser
It is called the Null Hypothesis.
Until positive evidence exists, there is zero justification to accept a positive claim.
Until there is evidence for the existence of a deity, not believing that the claimed-to-exist deity exists, is the only justified position to take.
The words “deity” and “universe” may be too small for the agents they’re supposed to represent.
The OP question may be too small to carry the words “deity” and “universe”.
Perhaps another way of asking the question would be simply…
“Is there any evidence that reality as we think we know it could arise by chance”?
Positive evidence…
Fundamental law of physics. Cause/Reaction. No exceptions.
Positive evidence…
Meaningful sentences require sentient authorship. No exceptions.
@ragingloli and what then is your point in calling out my answer as ignorant when you own answer clearly falls within the confines of this so called null hypothesis?
@Cruiser
The null hypothesis justifies my answer. There is no evidence, therefore I do not believe.
I was not expecting an answer to “what if,” @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. The relevant part was ” There are a million things that can give the same impetus and energy as a human hand.”
Addressing it, and toppling all of genetics is not equal.
If…
you believe that dna is not a genuine code which conforms to Purlwitz, Burks and Waterman formal definition, and that definition is not utilized with all formal research as outlined by Hubert Yockey book Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, and that it is not based upon Claude Shannon’s Mathematical Theory of Communication…
then…
the onus is on you to disprove otherwise. Unitl then, I’ll accept what all of genetics agrees upon… That your genetic code is a genuine six billion letter sentence that means something very specific… @ragingloli. It is so specific, that it will be used in a court of law.
Edit:
All anyone need to do to topple the premise that all codes require sentient authorship is to provide another mechanism which can be demonstrated to account for such. Just one example will do.
Not going to repeat myself.
I don’t remember you ever toppling the argument. So please remind me of when that occurred.
No repeating necessary. Just link me up.
@yetanotheruser that’s not the argument. The argument is I don’t know therefore I don’t know. Evidence points to it being unlikely. I can choose to go along with the evidence or I can choose think something else.
@Dutchess_III “The relevant part was…”
… that your example demonstrated a hand, and a sentient created mechanism. It did not fit the premise of your argument.
Ok @RealEyesRealizeRealLies
I have a question for those who suggest that God did the big bang thing, then just left the universe to sort itself out. If you believe that, then what is the point of religion? What is the point of praying to a God who backed out billions of years ago?
I’ll answer that. But I need you first to define “God”... and give two examples please ;).
I believe it’s the other way around. For me, it makes much more sense that something accidental (like the big bang) leading into something incremental (like ~13 billion years of particles combining and recombining) would create something as immensely intricate as the universe. The Big Bang gives us something out of nothing (or at least, our universe of time and space out of what was not our universe of time and space.) When I try to imagine a deity—something sentient—that existed before this accident-to-increment, I want to know how that deity is supposed to have come to be… any answer seems to have difficulties.
If “deity” is a term for something more abstract, some initial impulse or hiccup from which the universe cascaded, some hypothetical description of the “accident” of the Big Bang, then sure. Something happened in the nothingness, some blip. But I don’t think it’s anything more than that, and I don’t think it needs to be anything more than that.
If “deity” is a term for some human-like sentience or intelligence, or human-like concern, then no. We’re a product of that universe, and any deity that thinks or looks like us would be, too. The universe is vast and impartial. I happen to think it’s also beautiful, but that’s my human perspective.
No. I’ve studied enough, and heard and talked with enough people who have studied religion and history, to understand religion as metaphor. And to understand religious literalism as a mistake (or a technique for controlling a bunch of people).
That is, no spiritual tradition was created with the intention that there is literally some physical human-like personality with magic powers that zapped everything into being, and is still hanging around obsessed with the correctness of our behavior, etc., or who wants us to know his symbols and worship him, or whatever. Some people abuse religion to lead people around as if that were the case, but that entire type of thinking is a mistake, and not the intention of any spiritual tradition.
The actual messages in religion are about the actual universe and the actual way we connect and relate to it, expressed in metaphorical and mythological terms.
Admitting that there is not an answer is never ignorance, @Cruiser . Reaching for unsupported answers is. Not knowing just keeps science looking. Not knowing makes the superstitious make up stories.
@cazzie and why we have a plethora of religions.
I always wonder why people insist that something or some cosmic, intelligent force must have created the Big Bang/universe/world, but have no answer when you ask where did that intelligent being come from. If there must be a starting point, a god is not it. Where did that force come from? Who or what made a god? Deists believe a god just always was, but cannot fathom that the creation of the universe just happened. So much cognitive dissonance.
@tinyfaery “the creation of the universe just happened. ” that is exactly the problem I have as you cannot create something out of nothing especially as big as this universe. Physically it is impossible…metaphysically it is possible.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies If you are asking for evidence, there is no evidence either way if such a being exists. I was merely supplying you with an expiation of the concept of the being.
Metaphysics is a product of the human brain; therefore, forever suspect. A god can not come from nothing either. We only know what is. And since we’ve come so far as to be like gods, through technology and medicine and science, and have never found proof of anything beyond science, presupposing a god is not only unnecessary, but illogical.
It’s much more scientific and rational and modern to believe the universe created itself out of its own nothingness.
Perhaps instead of advocating or refuting the existence of God, it might be preferable to ask “What use is He?” Why is there such an innate desire in people to accept ( or invent) the supernatural?
No. To assume the cosmos needed a deity to exist also means something else is needed for the deity to exist.
No. But one of the reasons I’m agnostic is because current science dissatisfies me, as does any/all religion.
In my opinion, the existence of the universe is a paradox and there can’t be an answer. Everything we know to be true and real has an origin point. I still can’t reconcile that the universe was simply there one day, created from something – even something such as the big bang – because how did what caused the big bang exist? God/s is the same damn thing. It frustrates me an unbelievable amount no matter what. It can’t be proven one way or another. So be it, although it’s infuriating for insatiably curious people such as myself.
@NerdyKeith “If you are asking for evidence, there is no evidence either way if such a being exists.”
I didn’t ask for evidence. I provided it.
What I asked was for you to clarify your terms “deity” and “universe”.
@stanleybmanly “Why is there such an innate desire in people to accept ( or invent) the supernatural?”
If… a god type being exists, then… that is a perfectly natural agent.
Nothing supernatural about it at all. Brainwaves weren’t supernatural before the invention of the electroencephalogram, and then natural after the invention.
@DrasticDreamer “how did what caused the big bang exist? God/s is the same damn thing.”
If you look up the definition of “thing”, it refers to a physical object which satisfies notions of materialism. Physics observes and describes “things”. But it cannot be expected to observe and describe NO-things… “nothings” which exist before the big bang created space and time. The agent of deity, if one exists, will do so in a realm that is sans space and time. Consider a realm without time may not conform to our laws of physics requiring beginnings and endings, causes and reactions.
I believe this is the same realm where thought dwell, as we’ve never once witnessed a single thought spilling onto the floor during brain surgery. And we also know that a persons thought can be known far beyond their death. The words on this thread represent the thoughts of those who wrote them. Yet the words are not the thoughts themselves. And we cannot know if the person who wrote them is still alive, or dead. Yet the words still represent the thoughts. Where are the thoughts that these words represent?
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Either way, no matter what form of existence you refer to, or what plain of existence, what realm, etc., it still doesn’t answer the question of how the very first thing came to be. As for consciousness, yes, that’s also a great mystery to science. No one knows quite what it is or where it comes from.
Also, I don’t believe that time is real in general. It’s a human construct and is completely meaningless in the face of existence itself. Things just are, or they aren’t.
I find it really odd that people can’t believe/understand that the basic blocks of the Universe have always existed, but have gone through massive and sometimes fast changes due to cosmic forces and a length of time that is, frankly, very hard to grasp, but they can find it really easy to believe that there has been this fatherly figure in the sky who has always existed and will send sinners to a burning hell if they don’t live by a book written by iron age goat herders.
@tinyfaery “A god can not come from nothing either.” Your own statements, though a direct opposite of mine essentially stands on the same very fluid ground and is without substantiation or basis of scientific fact. It comes down to says you.
The bottom line is the universe or a God or anything for that matter has to come from something.
Nay, nay & thrice nay!!
I struggled with this as soon as I read your spelling of necessarily my eyes rolled around in my head & I suffered from blurred vision for several frustrating minutes :D
@DrasticDreamer ”...doesn’t answer the question of how the very first thing came to be”
As I tried to relate, if there is a god type being, it cannot by definition be a “thing”… a physical thing. Consider a state of is-ness beyond our confines of space time notions that were brought into existence at the big bang.
You’re basically asking what happened before the big bang. NO-Thing… nothing happened before, because time didn’t exist. No-thing (nothing) is North of the North Pole.
Okay @Cruiser you’ve arrived at the paradox around “who or what created God?”
It’s only a paradox for hard marxist materialist.
I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand.
A God type being, if one exists, is supposed to exist beyond space and time… beyond that moment when space and time began with the big bang. Physics agrees that time didn’t exist before the big bang. We shouldn’t even use the word “before” because there couldn’t have been a before the big bang.
So the God being MUST be timeless, and therefor is not required to have been created. This is only a paradox for those who insist upon foisting notions of time beyond the moment of the big bang. To do so is erroneous. Laws of physics simply cannot be applied to a timeless realm.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Nope, that’s not satisfactory for my brain. It’s again asking someone to blindly believe that something can simply exist which is what religion does. Not that I ultimately think the origin of everything is even answerable, because it will always be a matter of “the chicken or the egg”, but that’s precisely why I’m agnostic with atheist leanings. While I truly believe that anything is possible, I also think it’s very unlikely that anything any kind of people have called “Gods” exist.
So you insist upon foisting notions of materialistic time upon a being that is supposed to be beyond the boundaries of materialistic time?
Part of the issue with these discussions is that Atheists disbelieve in a different god than Theists believe in. They put limitations upon a being that is supposed to be without limitations. Even when physics confirms that the limitations of our universe don’t apply to realms of reality beyond our big bang… they still force our laws upon other realities that we know to exist.
Please remember, my comments always refer to “A God type being… if one exists”. I’m not saying one way or another. But if it exists, it is perfectly natural, not supernatural. And I’m positive it would be more beyond us than we are from snails. What could a snail communicate to his brethren about my presence?... No-Thing at all I suppose.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I see what you’re saying, and I wouldn’t even try to, for the sake of debate, put limitations on something that existed outside of the big bang – but even that seems silly to me, since, as far as we know, the universe contains absolutely everything. I know there are theories that say there might be multiple universes, but until that’s proven and the definition of “universe” is changed, no one really has any reason to believe that something did/does exist outside of what we know to contain everything.
Also, who did say that “god” or any other being mistaken as that of god, for the sake of the conversation, is supposed to be outside of time and/or the big bang? It’s difficult for me to even argue this, because I genuinely believe that time doesn’t exist anywhere. There is either existence or nonexistence in my view of the world. “Time” is a useful tool, but it’s not something that’s real.
”...as far as we know, the universe contains absolutely everything… something”
Every-thing… Some-thing. Refers to physical things. In a way, that allows us to agree that NO-Thing exists outside of our universe. No physical thing.
Yet we know that other agents or phenomenon do in fact exist beyond the physical realities. You claim time is a tool… yet not some-physical-thing (my take) that’s real… Yet what is past, or present, without that tool?
Thought defined as idea, notion, opinion, view, impression, feeling, theory, etc… No-Thing physical… yet we couldn’t be having this conversation if thought didn’t really exist.
Thought is also defined as an action. Note that action is not the same as re-action. Physics requires cause/re-action relationship to exist. Mind requires thought/action relationship to exist. No physics required for non-physical no-things.
Point being… that notions such as time, and ideas are proof, absolute proof, which demonstrate the existence of phenomenon that are not physical. I mean… if time doesn’t really exist (in our universe), then what were we talking about before our latest comments? And what shall we discuss in future comments?
Please read some Brian Greene or Roger Penrose… PLEASE!
Everybody. Some of the things written here just make my brain vomit. I don’t want to specify, because there is no point discussing specifics with some people.
@cazzie Well, if I was one of the ones who made your brain vomit, I apologize. :P
Trying to suppose upon what may have been or happened before the Big Bang is somewhat pointless. Not only because it is unknowable and not observable, but also because the Big Bang is the starting point for our Universe as is. Nothing about our Universe applies before that moment. Expend all the mental energy you want on the question, but you’ll only end up running around in circles.
@Darth_Algar ”...Big Bang is the starting point for our Universe as is. Nothing about our Universe applies before that moment.”
That is the generally agreed upon observation, and the reason why our physical laws of causation/reaction, before/after simply cannot be applied.
@Darth_Algar ”...it is unknowable and not observable…”
Consider that even under this restraint, physicists are allowed to speculate and theorize. They are applauded for doing so, and many colorfully illustrated programs are created to promote their theories to the degree they are practically taken as fact by the general public. Great way to get grant money… or fill the tithing plate, if you will.
I like the approach of our suggested friend Roger Penrose, who in his book The Emperors New Mind …argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness…
Penrose is an atheist.[28] In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it’s not somehow just there by chance… some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it’s a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.
It’s interesting to me that although Penrose thinks the universe has “a purpose”, he doesn’t make the connection that things with purpose are always created by a purposeful mind. That’s the human style creation model. It’s not the same as, say… Jupiter protecting earth from asteroid impact. That’s not Jupiters purpose. It’s just a happy factual result of many causation/reaction events… or so it seems.
As to “unknowable and unobservable”... Well, we should be allowed to play the same game as physicists, who don’t always observe actual events, but instead speculate upon the effects of events. As such, we do know the effects of thought, although we cannot actually observe a thought. And we do know that DNA is a genuine code. And code is always traceable back to sentient authorship, even if that author is anonymous. Code is always the affect of sentient authorship. It means something. It is very purposeful.
Thank you for that Penrose link @cazzie. I believe it reveals a fundamental flaw in communication about this topic across multiple disciplines. Penrose makes the same claim that I’ve seen Greene make in his presentations of black holes.
They both claim that black holes consume information. See Penrose make this claim from your link at time code 15:57. You can see Brian Greene making the same claim in this video at time code0:32. Notice the graphic that magically changes a lamp into 1’s and 0’s to illustrate the idea that a lamp is the same thing as information.
Physics defines information in a completely different way than all other disciplines, including cybernetics, genetics, engineering, computer science, information theory, library sciences, and all other disciplines that I know of. It makes talking about this subject very difficult to communicate effectively. Physics believes that every material object is equal to information.
The trend for doing that was reported in 2003:
In 2003 J. D. Bekenstein claimed that a growing trend in physics was to define the physical world as being made up of information itself.
I believe this is erroneous. Physics, (by lack of understanding what information really is) has hijacked the word to mean something different. This new definition allows physics to promote theories that may otherwise not have as much validity if they used the standard definitions.
Norbert Wiener the father of cybernetics denotes the problem with defining information in this way. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.
We should be careful with the words we use to describe and promote our theories. Makes it sound like some people know what they’re talking about, when in fact, we just end up talking past one another with no real communication occurring at all.
______
Reminds me of the day when adult stem cell research was being promoted in Missouri. It failed many times to be legalized. But then the promoters got smart, and redefined the definition of cloning. The bill passed with this new definition, and now adult stem cell research is legal in Missouri. Everything changed, just by redefining a word to mean something different than it meant previously.
Nope. No evidence to suggest a god, and if there is one, who or what made the god?
“If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God” – Bertrand Russell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“God is dead.” Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead.” God
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Didn’t say or imply that you shouldn’t be allowed to. Merely stated my view that it is somewhat pointless. A bit like putting the cart before the horse. Way before the horse.
Answer this question 
