Religion = Child; Science = Adult

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What is a magic spaceman?

That's an excellent question. Ask most any theist and you will get a myriad of non-answers.

 

[PyramidHead]

The "man" part is important to not lose focus of. Above all else, the Christian conception of God is basically a mega-amplified human. It extrapolates from the limitations of humans to arrive at a concept that is therefore limited in itself. The creator God of the Bible is small, as is his creation, because he is based on the characteristics of humans at the time the stories were invented. He does things in discrete steps rather than gradually. He takes breaks. He evaluates his work. He gets jealous. He only creates things that people living in that time knew about, like animals and bodies of water; whether he creates bacteria, which constitutes the vast majority of life, is curiously never mentioned. He tells people what to do and what not to do. He makes mistakes and starts over again. These are not the characteristics of a being whose nature matches even the most generous interpretation of remez' conclusion, which at best implies an impersonal creative force akin to the Tao or Brahman.

 

[Kharakov]

I have my own definition of "supernatural" but I don't know what yours is. Can you tell me what you think that word means?

Interesting how these conversations usually come down to such questions. The word and its definition are a classic example of question begging.

Bed, Bath, and Super is an excellent place to light candles and fire test draperies. Fire truck.

 

[abaddon]

The blend of Greek philosophizing with Hebraic mythologizing didn't result in a theology that transcends the myth-making imagination into the shining light of Reason. The result is just what it is: a befuddled mix of attempts at logic + ancient myths.

The residents of Supernature - God, angels and the rest - fit perfectly with dreams, fairy lore and mythic tales. There is no other genesis. It's plain to see these do not arise from reason alone. The Greek philosophers who mused on "the divine" but depersonalized it didn't arrive at their conclusion without starting from ancient mythic images. No one has ever done so because, no matter the definition, the notion arose historically from the human imagination. It was imagistic first, philosophical afterwards.

I'd enjoy discussing religion better if it were productive and not just an exercise in wits. That'd require people dropping the misdirection from metaphor into "the supernatural". The human imagination informs our values and thus our behaviors. So in a world where humanity's relation with the rest of earth's ecology has come to matter more than anything, we need to get our metaphors straight. That's hard to do when everyone's arguing facts and "the supernatural" is being argued as one of them. We need a new worldview, one that expresses love of Earth and pure immanence, and not one with an 'impulse to transcend' to Somewhere Else.

"Half the people of the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies." ~ from Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor​

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The "man" part is important to not lose focus of. Above all else, the Christian conception of God is basically a mega-amplified human. It extrapolates from the limitations of humans to arrive at a concept that is therefore limited in itself. The creator God of the Bible is small, as is his creation, because he is based on the characteristics of humans at the time the stories were invented. He does things in discrete steps rather than gradually. He takes breaks. He evaluates his work. He gets jealous. He only creates things that people living in that time knew about, like animals and bodies of water; whether he creates bacteria, which constitutes the vast majority of life, is curiously never mentioned. He tells people what to do and what not to do. He makes mistakes and starts over again. These are not the characteristics of a being whose nature matches even the most generous interpretation of remez' conclusion, which at best implies an impersonal creative force akin to the Tao or Brahman.

This short, three-letter-word, god, is in all seriousness the quintessential magic spaceman, the cosmic magician, the superbuddy, the big-boy babydoll that I can pretend can do anything, and it lives in the sky, in space! It talks to people from the sky, appears in the sky and it comes and goes from the sky. It's always with me and knows when I am bad and when I am good because it is watching me from up there. There's no other short description that gives its mysterious, spooky everythingness any substance at all. So I think Learner is just playing coy.

 

[Learner]

This short, three-letter-word, god, is in all seriousness the quintessential magic spaceman, the cosmic magician, the superbuddy, the big-boy babydoll that I can pretend can do anything, and it lives in the sky, in space! It talks to people from the sky, appears in the sky and it comes and goes from the sky. It's always with me and knows when I am bad and when I am good because it is watching me from up there. There's no other short description that gives its mysterious, spooky everythingness any substance at all. So I think Learner is just playing coy.

Fair point of view. Trust you to add to the "define" confusion with even more names for a god-like entity of sorts.

 

[remez]

I'm doing this because I enjoy it for some reason,

Me too…….Thanks folks.
I fully intend to continue, but I'll be away until late next week.
Stay safe.

Sorry for the delay.

 

[remez]

Post 118

Cyclic myths fail for two different reasons. Look it up. Because, if I tell you how you’ll simply claim I’m hand waving and dismissing you.

Actually, if you tell me then it would be precisely the opposite of handwaving,

Ok…
Theoretically they are fun to ponder but they are physically impossible for many reasons. Quick two. First, the observed homogeneity of matter distribution throughout the universe is unaccountable in the OM. Second, the observed density of the universe is insufficient for a re-contraction of the universe. And I can’t resist one more….the …“what if true”….Entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in the OM, thus generating larger and longer oscillations with each cycle, thus thermodynamic properties of an OM actually imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid.

My position is not a nihilism about objects,

As it was originally written it certainly seemed that way. I have actually had to deal with that a number of times. Thus I was not hand waving but accurately addressing what you seemed to be expressing. To what you have now made clear…………….

name something that began to exist in the way you think the universe began to exist, i.e. not by rearranging things that already exist.

I actually have a different contention to offer against accepting your premise, namely the reasonable distinction the of a first cause. But I want to hold on that for a moment and head into a new direction for sake of discussion. I have never gone this way on this issue before. As I was beginning to understand your challenge I challenged myself with… what if the premise had merit, could there be an answer?

I offer to you the placebo effect.
Would that satisfy your request, just for the sake of discussion?
Be merciful.

I'm afraid that simply won't do. Simultaneity is just as time-bound as past and future are. Simultaneous means "at the same time as". What you are saying here is that the creation of the universe is something that took place at a specific time, which contradicts your earlier claim that it happened outside of time.

I want to be clear that you understand that I’m using a tensed theory of time and thus classically……
for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t,
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists,
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly,
(iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

No hidden facts…. this is a tensed time position
Are you suggesting a tenseless theory of time?

This is the step that bothers me. Why would you look for any particular version of God, in any book, to "match" it to?

What if you set out to disprove God exists? Would you start with science and good philosophy to make your case? And as you were progressing, you could knock out as many gods as possible with your good philosophy and science? Doesn’t that sound reasonable? But wouldn’t you logically have to know what it is you are trying to disprove in order to disprove it?


How about this….Given the scientific knowledge I now possess. And the sound reasoning that the universe began to exist. And the long list of reasonable characteristics of the cause. Given all that. I now want to know if Pangu was the cause. I just googled creator gods and picked that cool name. So why would it bother you to press the link and check out the info on Pangu?

Well, I did it anyway and found this…. according to history Pangu is believed to have been created in the universe and yet to be the cause of the universe. So just like a thousand of other polytheistic gods Pangu is part of the universe. Think about it. Just like joedad’s magic spaceman, Pangu is part of the universe. Which means that Pangu like all those other thousands of polytheistic gods would have had to create himself. For me that just is completely unreasonable.

So seriously what is wrong with the reasoning of wanting to know what it is you’re trying to prove or disprove? I don’t understand why that bothers you.

If your reasoning is correct, then it only proves what the premises set out to prove.

Hold on…..Premises don’t set out to prove anything. Reasoning sets out to prove something by constructing an order set of premises to reach a conclusion. Your use of the word “premises” is misleading. You are conflating the reasoning and the premises of an argument.

You know enough about logic to know that if God is smuggled into a premise (a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.) and the argument concludes with God, then you have a circular reasoning fallacy.


I’ll certainly admit that the reason for the argument was God, but he certainly does not appear in the formal premises the argument. There is no circular reasoning there unless you can name the premise and show me where God was smuggled in.


What you really said there was….. If your “reasoning” is correct, then it only proves what the “reasoning” (not premise) set out to prove. Well to that, all I have to say is, "I certainly hope so."

Just keep repeating it over and over, and I will eventually be convinced by the rhythm and timbre of the words. I did not mention any polytheistic gods, I simply pointed out that there have been many gods invented by humans, many stories of creation from nothing. Jehovah was one of many gods before they eventually retconned him into the one-and-only, by all accounts.

Just keep repeating it over and over, and I will eventually be convinced by the rhythm and timbre of the words. You keep saying ”I didn’t say polytheistic gods” You keep reasoning that all gods are the same. Why?.... Because your definition of a god is something people make up. That’s all you seem to know on the subject. Thus you made up your own straw gods to defeat all gods. Because right here…………

many stories of creation from nothing. Jehovah was one of many gods before they eventually retconned him into the one-and-only, by all accounts.

… you can’t make a case that there are many stories of creation from nothing. Followed by your theory that Jehovah is the compiled settlement. Seriously, to prove my point….I’m calling your bluff.

I’m seriously challenging you to provide even five other gods that created from nothing. And then make the case that Jehovah was the compilation of those others gods. I’m betting no way. Until you can, your objection here is unreasonable.

1. That time was caused to exist, despite time itself being required for causation and despite the logical requirement that all events take place at some time. Any argument that includes a premise that something happened without time, or that something caused time to begin, is doomed from the start.

Addressed above. But more here…. What is more plausible that time (physical dimension of the universe) began to exist, or the time is past eternal? Because from what you wrote above you’re wrong either way?

2. That the origins of reality do not have to account for the (presumably real) entity that caused all of reality (except for some invented reason, itself) to begin.

There is the blind assumption of your worldview. You are assuming that the universe is all of reality. Thus your “Saganism” doesn’t even make sense.

If the universe is all that exists and has ever existed, and God exists, God cannot be the explanation for the universe, period.

How does that even make sense? The universe is ALL that exist and has ever existed AND GOD EXISTS. How can there be an “and” if the universe is ALL that has ever existed? And what god? ..... of the thousand made up gods are you talking about? Because if by context you meant the Biblical God who is eternal then he is the universe by your reasoning. The Biblical God is not pantheistic.

3. That the cause of reality needs to be an intelligence, something resembling a God, rather than something that does not resemble a God. This is where you basically stacked the deck in your favor. Intelligence comes LATE in the universe, after successive iterations of failed attempts at intelligence, going all the way back to simple, non-intelligent beginnings. To postulate it at the beginning is transparent question-begging.

Interesting. I never mentioned that characteristic here, because that would likely entail yet another couple of formal arguments. You however claim I postulated intelligence at the beginning even though I never brought it up that characteristic. More interesting than that…. You simply postulated the opposite, stacking the deck in your favor. A postulate does not a case make. Have at it. Mind over matter or matter over mind.

You keep the science terminology around to help you get out of a pinch, but you actually don't use any science to come to your conclusion.

Yes I stand guilty of using science and good philosophy to oppose your myths and bad philosophies. But I ask you…..what’s wrong with that?

Really………I don’t actually use science??????????? Lets investigate.

First, just a moment ago you rightly acknowledged my scientific support and now you deny that I even use science.

Silly person, mentioning something discovered by scientists is not using science. Science is not a body of knowledge, but a method.

“Science is not a body of knowledge”
You have got to be kidding….. oh Merriam….

Definition of SCIENCE
1. 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2. 2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theologyb : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science
3. 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methodb : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4. 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both ascience and an art
5. 5capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

And finally....

I would like to disabuse you of the notion that I'm interested in fighting you, claiming victory, or even participating in a debate that needs to be resolved. I don't have any interest in convincing you that you are wrong. I put no stock in claiming internet victory against Christians. I'm doing this because I enjoy it for some reason, and I can stop anytime. If and when I do, feel free to pat yourself on the back and chalk up another win for your side, I won't mind.

Petty.

 

[remez]

From 107

I concur.

And your side as well. Karl Sagan’s famous quote… The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be….. is not a statement of physics. It is an assertion of his worldview based on the physics.

Steven Hawking’s Grand Design…..Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going…..the same.

Lawrence Krause’s foundational definition of “nothing” is laughable, rendering theory laughable as well. I can go on. But the point is…..you “atheists just assume your side is pure and untouched by the standards you hold to us. Open your eyes.

This is a battle of worldviews. It is not a battle of science vs Christianity. It is a battle of which worldview is better supported by science.

Sagan would concur that people having thoughts about magic spacemen is certainly part of the cosmos. But he would not include magic spacemen as part of the cosmos. I'm not up on Hawking and nothing, but Krauss essentially distinguishes between nothing and zero, same as myself, then goes on to become all flowery.

I don't see a battle of worldviews, just fact vs fantasy, knowledge vs feel-good, religious drivel, natural selection operating in an environment. People love fantasy, but kids outgrow their fantastic Claus because they begin to collect facts, those who can. I've met 50 year olds who fervently believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny because they are mentally impaired. That's observational proof enough for me that magic spacemen are symptoms of differing mental development, not magic spacemen.

Full quote above for reference. From post 116.

I don't see a battle of worldviews,

Yes that was my point, you are blind to your own assumptions here. Everything you just said can be presented more reasonably for my worldview against yours. You simply assume your worldview is correct by blind conflation to fact. Here…….

Sagan would concur that people having thoughts about magic spacemen is certainly part of the cosmos. But he would not include magic spacemen as part of the cosmos.

And neither would I. You don’t even understand the difference between Christianity and polytheism. You are presenting a case against Christianity by mocking a straw man.

Here is more your blindness…..

I'm not up on Hawking and nothing, but Krauss essentially distinguishes between nothing and zero, same as myself, then goes on to become all flowery.

…that was your response to this……….

Physics is not semantics.

I concur.

Labels and language are just convenient communication devices. Using different words or inventing entirely new words to describe something "spooky" is the hallmark of religious thought.

And your side as well. Karl Sagan’s famous quote… The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be….. is not a statement of physics. It is an assertion of his worldview based on the physics.

Steven Hawking’s Grand Design…..Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going…..the same.

Lawrence Krause’s foundational definition of “nothing” is laughable, rendering theory laughable as well. I can go on. But the point is…..you “atheists just assume your side is pure and untouched by the standards you hold to us. Open your eyes.

…thus your reponse above just agreed with my objection and even supplied evidence that supported my position, but you continued right on assuming your position is purely conflated to fact.

I don't see a battle of worldviews, just fact vs fantasy, knowledge vs feel-good,

It is a battle of worldviews,

“just fact versus fantasy,” like the fantasy examples from your worldview I just presented and you acknowledged. Your fantasies don’t default to factual science supporting your worldview. Science does not default to anti-theism. This is a debate as to which of our worldviews is better supported by science.

“knowledge vs feel-good,” …. knowledge vs feel-good notions like science defaults to anti-theism by reasoning that is based on only blind assumption and irrational mockery of a straw man.

Your case is fantasy.

People love fantasy,

Doesn’t fantasy equate to blind assumption? Like Sagan's semantics.

People love fantasy, but kids outgrow their fantastic Claus because they begin to collect facts, those who can. I've met 50 year olds who fervently believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny because they are mentally impaired. That's observational proof enough for me that magic spacemen are symptoms of differing mental development, not magic spacemen.

I’ve met older anti-theists that ditched Santa a long time ago, but after a life time of anti-theism they have also ditched anti-theism for theism. Thus your Santa analogies and mocking straw man is irrelevant and irrational.

 

[remez]

From post 117

It seems to me that you're saying this, and please correct me if I'm not understanding you correctly: nature follows cause and effect, therefore it can't cause itself. Supernature doesn't have to follow cause and effect so it can cause nature. And because supernature doesn't follow cause and effect I don't have to account for the supernatural. At least that's how your argument is coming across to me,

OK.
The correction is obvious. You are contradicting yourself……………

Thus the cause (interaction) must logically be something beyond our universe/nature. Hence supernatural.

Classic cart before the horse.

How so?
Which alternative do you espouse?

This time you tell me….. Could nature have caused itself?

Maybe it has no cause. It just is.

…..examine your reasoning there. That which is eternal has no cause. That is precisely what you’re inferring. Note also that you understand that this inference does not stand in violation of the law of cause and effect. You get it….that which is eternal has no cause, that was why you suggested that the universe is eternal, “Maybe it has no cause. It just is.” Yet you pretend not to understand my case of an eternal God, and object that God needs a cause.

Now which is more plausible with all the scientific evidence we have now…..the universe’s past is finite or eternal? To believe the universe is past eternal stands in opposition to what we scientifically know now.
So………..
Which worldview is better supported by the scientific evidence?


So again………..to challenge me with this with this reasoning………..

Because…………

If yes then you are abandoning reason.
If no then reasonably its cause was from beyond nature.

Choose a horse or name some other.

You chose a supernatural horse and I'll ask what caused *that* horse?

……demonstrates that you’re simply contradicting yourself. If an eternal universe needs no cause then why would an eternal God?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

……demonstrates that you’re simply contradicting yourself. If an eternal universe needs no cause then why would an eternal God?

Except that we have our universe. You only claim to have your magic spaceman.

 

[PyramidHead]

First, the observed homogeneity of matter distribution throughout the universe is unaccountable in the OM. Second, the observed density of the universe is insufficient for a re-contraction of the universe. And I can’t resist one more….the …“what if true”….Entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in the OM, thus generating larger and longer oscillations with each cycle, thus thermodynamic properties of an OM actually imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid.

None of this applies unless we assume the observable universe is all that exists. I don't make that assumption, and I don't see why I should. But as I keep saying, it's not a major point of contention for me. Maybe the past is infinite, maybe it's bounded. It doesn't have anything to do with the real problems in your reasoning, as I will again try to show.

I actually have a different contention to offer against accepting your premise, namely the reasonable distinction the of a first cause. But I want to hold on that for a moment and head into a new direction for sake of discussion. I have never gone this way on this issue before. As I was beginning to understand your challenge I challenged myself with… what if the premise had merit, could there be an answer?

I offer to you the placebo effect.
Would that satisfy your request, just for the sake of discussion?
Be merciful.

The placebo effect is an example of something whose cause is believed to be one thing when it is actually another. Each time it happens, it takes place in the brain and body of the person who experiences it, as a result of psychological cues and behaviors associated with a certain outcome. These factors--person with brain and body, psychological cues, anticipated outcome--all must exist beforehand, otherwise the placebo effect doesn't happen. So, no, that is not an example of something beginning to exist in a manner that does not depend on pre-existing things.

I want to be clear that you understand that I’m using a tensed theory of time and thus classically……
for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t,
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists,
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly,
(iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

No hidden facts…. this is a tensed time position
Are you suggesting a tenseless theory of time?

That's not relevant to the discussion. Here is why. In your statement, e is not something that can be spoken of relative to time, because e is time itself. By definition, there is no time at which time does not exist. This is not some profound musing about the universe, it's just logic. The critical point is that all actions take place at some time. There is no such thing as an event that happens "outside" of time, and no such thing as a cause that happens simultaneously with its effect, because the concept of happening requires the framework of time. There was a time when stuff was one way, and then something happened, and now stuff is another way. That's the concept of happening in a nutshell. No way to make it work without invoking the thing you're trying to explain.

Which means that Pangu like all those other thousands of polytheistic gods would have had to create himself. For me that just is completely unreasonable.

The irony here is that it is no more unreasonable than a being who can create things without time. Both are verbal contortions that don't really mean anything.

I’m seriously challenging you to provide even five other gods that created from nothing. And then make the case that Jehovah was the compilation of those others gods.

Ah, I see your misunderstanding. I wasn't saying Jehovah was a compilation, just that he was believed by his early followers to exist alongside other gods such as Baal. It was not until later that he was believed to be the only god. Monotheism evolved from disputes among polytheisms; my god is stronger than yours, well mine created the whole universe, well MINE IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD! See here for a decent historical summary.

Ptah and Waheguru are said to have created everything from, respectively, a thought and a word. Mbombo was believed to have vomited up the universe. Esege Malan created everything from a state of darkness and silence, but you'd probably say he's cheating because he allegedly scooped up some dirt to get things started. But these are not meant to be taken literally, they are poetic license. The RigVeda speaks of the One that was present beyond being and non-being, and Tao is thought to be the ground state of nothingness from which existence spontaneously springs. This last one is actually probably the closest any religion or philosophy has gotten to what physicists hypothesize to have occurred. There are surely more examples.

What is more plausible that time (physical dimension of the universe) began to exist, or the time is past eternal? Because from what you wrote above you’re wrong either way?

Both options seem implausible due to our limited perspective as humans who evolved to deal with far less complicated problems. However, you're smuggling again. I never said time could not have had a beginning, just that it could not have been caused to begin. The past could very well be bounded in the same way that the surface of a sphere is bounded (no beginning), the way a line segment is bounded (a beginning and an end), a vector (beginning but no end), or infinite. Under all of those models, one thing remains common: everything that occurs happens sometime. No cause, no matter how simple, can be snuck into the margin before the first instant of time. No act of deliberating intelligence can somehow be executed without having a moment at which it was executed.

There is the blind assumption of your worldview. You are assuming that the universe is all of reality. Thus your “Saganism” doesn’t even make sense.

No, I am defining the universe as all of reality. If you're just trying to provide an explanation for the part of reality we have so far observed, you still have to explain the rest of it, including the origin of the creator itself.

If the universe is all that exists and has ever existed, and God exists, God cannot be the explanation for the universe, period.

How does that even make sense? The universe is ALL that exist and has ever existed AND GOD EXISTS. How can there be an “and” if the universe is ALL that has ever existed?

Because, for the umpteenth time, there is no "outside" the universe if you simply define the universe as everything that exists, even what we have yet to see, even what we will never see. You're leaning on the concept of a universe that has a fence around it, beyond which any manner of beings can be inserted for whatever reason; I am talking about being itself. If something IS, then it is part of WHAT IS. Thus: if God is, then God is part of what is, and could not be the explanation for all of what is. So I ask you: how can God exist while also being the cause of all that exists, unless...

You however claim I postulated intelligence at the beginning even though I never brought it up that characteristic. More interesting than that…. You simply postulated the opposite, stacking the deck in your favor.

Your words:

The cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and incredibly powerful (Supported by forensic science)

The cause must be a personal creator (philosophy/logic)

A powerful person who creates things does so by using intelligence. But you fixated too much on that word. I could easily rephrase my objection without it; the point is that nothing we observe allows anyone to assume that the cause of all reality was a personal creator. I don't postulate the opposite, I simply refrain from making the claim. As it turns out, there are abundant reasons to reject the hypothesis of a personal creator. It's small, provincial, anthropocentric, not required to explain any evidence, and ill-fitting with the evidence we have already explained. We could easily imagine a universe that was much more consonant with the Biblical hypothesis, and it looks nothing like the universe we actually live in. Conversely, if we try to imagine a universe that is indifferent or utterly inhospitable to life in most of its geometry, originating from chaos that coalesced over inconceivable eons to give rise to trillions of miles of emptiness that do not include humans, it sounds kind of like the universe we know and love.

 

[Shadowy Man]

That which is eternal has no cause. That is precisely what you’re inferring. Note also that you understand that this inference does not stand in violation of the law of cause and effect. You get it….that which is eternal has no cause, that was why you suggested that the universe is eternal, “Maybe it has no cause. It just is.” Yet you pretend not to understand my case of an eternal God, and object that God needs a cause.

Fair enough. You can say that your god has no cause just as I saw the universe has no cause. How do we know which is right? Well, there is good evidence that the universe exists, but no good evidence that your god exists. So, I'm gonna go with the universe.

Now which is more plausible with all the scientific evidence we have now…..the universe’s past is finite or eternal? To believe the universe is past eternal stands in opposition to what we scientifically know now.

All we scientifically know now is that the universe was in a hot, ultradense state about 14 billion years ago. Before that, we just don't know. That doesn't mean the universe isn't eternal. There's no way to rule that out. Therefore, there is currently no scientific necessity for a creator.

 

[PyramidHead]

There are several possibilities that are often ignored by people looking to push their favorite religious explanation for the universe. For one thing, it could be the case that the observable universe was created by something outside of the observable universe (but not outside of all of time and space), and whatever that thing is no longer exists. Why does the creator of the observable universe have to be eternal and all-powerful anyway? If we're being honest, shouldn't it just have to be old enough and powerful enough to do the thing it was supposed to do? To say otherwise is to allow your reasoning to be polluted by pre-existing biases, derived from the musings of theologians, not from anything in the data as they stand. To put it another way, if your only data point is the idea that the observable universe had a beginning, this alone is not sufficient to deduce that it was caused by anything outside of time and space. There may be regions of time and space beyond what we can observe, and dimensions higher than what can even be conceptualized by our brains. If the region of spacetime we can observe is the result of something outside of it, we have no way of ruling out any number of unknown factors that have or have not been speculated by current theories. But even if we somehow agree that it was created by some kind of mind, whether or not that mind is eternal or simply contingent on another set of physical laws we know nothing about is beyond the scope of the evidence. Given the fact that no evidence of extra-universal intervention can be found anytime after the Big Bang, the hypothesis that "God" made everything and then disappeared is actually more representative of what is observed than the Christian claim of an omnipotent, eternal being.

 

[abaddon]

Why does the creator of the observable universe have to be eternal and all-powerful anyway?

Similar to how the circle was thought "perfect" (in its Ideal form), an everlasting being is thought better than any alternative. A creationist will say it's logically necessary but then creationists like remez are around to show how people get bound up in the prejudices of their worldviews. Something like this is not ultimately determined by logic; it's human psychology.

"Why does the creator of the observable universe have to be eternal and all-powerful anyway?" Because he has to be the bestest, most complete contrast to the other half of their dualism: the everlasting versus the temporal.

There's a glum neoplatonic/gnostic dualism underlying the spiritual worldview. There must be a transcendent "better than all this shit down here" something, or it's all random and meaningless because "mere matter" seems like it is all just dumb junk. The body and nature are temporal and corruptible and flawed and filled with sin and suffering. The spirit and its true home is eternal and not subject to the ravages that matter is.

"Where'd it all come from?" The question itself arises from the dualism, the fundamental prejudice of this "best explanation" worldview, and then becomes a piece in the logic for it. "All that temporal stuff has to start somewhere" is a needless assumption, unrecognized as such.

So God has necessarily to be eternal because the alternative that everything's temporary is not emotionally satisfying. A personal being because the maker must be minded or humans aren't intended (and what an abhorrent prospect that is). All-mighty to be the final answer to everything, from the cosmos to ethics.

The assumptions of worldviews have a psychological and even linguistic genesis (noun-verb-object played a role in The Maker metaphor... note that there isn't a Maker in Chinese cosmology and that the language doesn't have the same structure). I agree with remez it is important to recognize them.

 

[remez]

……demonstrates that you’re simply contradicting yourself. If an eternal universe needs no cause then why would an eternal God?

Except that we have our universe. You only claim to have your magic spaceman.

You conveniently missed the context of a past eternal universe, which presents some issues for your worldview and completely supports mine.
As to your magic space-straw man. I have made no such claim. As a matter of reason, I reject him as well.
In my last post to you………….

Sagan would concur that people having thoughts about magic spacemen is certainly part of the cosmos. But he would not include magic spacemen as part of the cosmos. I'm not up on Hawking and nothing, but Krauss essentially distinguishes between nothing and zero, same as myself, then goes on to become all flowery.

I don't see a battle of worldviews, just fact vs fantasy, knowledge vs feel-good, religious drivel, natural selection operating in an environment. People love fantasy, but kids outgrow their fantastic Claus because they begin to collect facts, those who can. I've met 50 year olds who fervently believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny because they are mentally impaired. That's observational proof enough for me that magic spacemen are symptoms of differing mental development, not magic spacemen.

Full quote above for reference. From post 116.

I don't see a battle of worldviews,

Yes that was my point, you are blind to your own assumptions here. Everything you just said can be presented more reasonably for my worldview against yours. You simply assume your worldview is correct by blind conflation to fact. Here…….

Sagan would concur that people having thoughts about magic spacemen is certainly part of the cosmos. But he would not include magic spacemen as part of the cosmos.

And neither would I. You don’t even understand the difference between Christianity and polytheism. You are presenting a case against Christianity by mocking a straw man.

Here is more your blindness…..

I'm not up on Hawking and nothing, but Krauss essentially distinguishes between nothing and zero, same as myself, then goes on to become all flowery.

…that was your response to this……….

Physics is not semantics.

I concur.

Labels and language are just convenient communication devices. Using different words or inventing entirely new words to describe something "spooky" is the hallmark of religious thought.

And your side as well. Karl Sagan’s famous quote… The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be….. is not a statement of physics. It is an assertion of his worldview based on the physics.

Steven Hawking’s Grand Design…..Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going…..the same.

Lawrence Krause’s foundational definition of “nothing” is laughable, rendering theory laughable as well. I can go on. But the point is…..you “atheists just assume your side is pure and untouched by the standards you hold to us. Open your eyes.

…thus your reponse above just agreed with my objection and even supplied evidence that supported my position, but you continued right on assuming your position is purely conflated to fact.

I don't see a battle of worldviews, just fact vs fantasy, knowledge vs feel-good,

It is a battle of worldviews,

“just fact versus fantasy,” like the fantasy examples from your worldview I just presented and you acknowledged. Your fantasies don’t default to factual science supporting your worldview. Science does not default to anti-theism. This is a debate as to which of our worldviews is better supported by science.

“knowledge vs feel-good,” …. knowledge vs feel-good notions like science defaults to anti-theism by reasoning that is based on only blind assumption and irrational mockery of a straw man.

Your case is fantasy.

People love fantasy,

Doesn’t fantasy equate to blind assumption? Like Sagan's semantics.

People love fantasy, but kids outgrow their fantastic Claus because they begin to collect facts, those who can. I've met 50 year olds who fervently believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny because they are mentally impaired. That's observational proof enough for me that magic spacemen are symptoms of differing mental development, not magic spacemen.

I’ve met older anti-theists that ditched Santa a long time ago, but after a life time of anti-theism they have also ditched anti-theism for theism. Thus your Santa analogies and mocking straw man is irrelevant and irrational.

……… I addressed the fallaciousness of your magic space-straw man. Thus to leave your space-straw man unsupported by reason is dishonest. And yet you bemoan my worldview to be pure semantics and fantasy? Open your eyes.

 

[remez]

I’m trying to shorten up our long posts. You may of course respond to them with one post or ignore altogether. But I think this context probably ends here.

There are also multiple alternatives to this theorem, including cyclic models, that have yet to be ruled out experimentally.

Cyclic myths fail for two different reasons. Look it up. Because, if I tell you how you’ll simply claim I’m hand waving and dismissing you. Once again it’s not in the Bible.

Actually, if you tell me then it would be precisely the opposite of handwaving,

Ok…
Theoretically they are fun to ponder but they are physically impossible for many reasons. Quick two.
First, the observed homogeneity of matter distribution throughout the universe is unaccountable in the OM. Second, the observed density of the universe is insufficient for a re-contraction of the universe.And I can’t resist one more….the …“what if true”….Entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in the OM, thus generating larger and longer oscillations with each cycle, thus thermodynamic properties of an OM actually imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid.

None of this applies unless we assume the observable universe is all that exists. I don't make that assumption, and I don't see why I should. But as I keep saying, it's not a major point of contention for me. Maybe the past is infinite, maybe it's bounded. It doesn't have anything to do with the real problems in your reasoning, as I will again try to show.

You offered cyclic models to counter the premise that the universe began to exist.
I told you that they failed.
You asked me to provide evidence.
I provided you scientific evidence to their failure.
You then relied that “None of this applies unless we assume the observable universe is all that exists”

I don’t make that assumption either.
And…….
Regardless of the assumption, my counters to your cyclic counter, succeed in their efforts to render your counter as useless against the premise that the universe began to exist. I was only countering your counter not trying to defend an assumption.

 

[remez]

I want to be clear that you understand that I’m using a tensed theory of time and thus classically……
for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t,
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists,
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly,
(iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

No hidden facts…. this is a tensed time position
Are you suggesting a tenseless theory of time?

That's not relevant to the discussion. Here is why. In your statement, e is not something that can be spoken of relative to time, because e is time itself. By definition, there is no time at which time does not exist. This is not some profound musing about the universe, it's just logic. The critical point is that all actions take place at some time. There is no such thing as an event that happens "outside" of time, and no such thing as a cause that happens simultaneously with its effect, because the concept of happening requires the framework of time.

We are in the context of a first cause here, therefore…. “This is not some profound musing about the universe, it's just logic.” Thus logically …… “and no such thing as a cause that happens simultaneously with its effect, because the concept of happening requires the framework of time.” …. The framework IS (ii) Captain.

What is more plausible that time (physical dimension of the universe) began to exist, or the time is past eternal? Because from what you wrote above you’re wrong either way?

Both options seem implausible due to our limited perspective as humans who evolved to deal with far less complicated problems. However, you're smuggling again. I never said time could not have had a beginning, just that it could not have been caused to begin.

To begin and not have a cause is more magical than Santa.

The past could very well be bounded in the same way that the surface of a sphere is bounded (no beginning),

Two issues here…. First, Your notion of the Hartle-Hawking model does not infer no beginning it infers you can’t determine the beginning. Similar to your quantum indeterminism. Secondly……again…..

Under all of those models, one thing remains common: everything that occurs happens sometime. No cause, no matter how simple, can be snuck into the margin before the first instant of time. No act of deliberating intelligence can somehow be executed without having a moment at which it was executed.

(ii) Captain. You are denying a first cause.

 

[remez]

Here is the ultimate reality of our discussion….

None of this applies unless we assume the observable universe is all that exists. I don't make that assumption, and I don't see why I should.

Provided just for point of distinction………..



…..between differing worldviews.

And right here is where you contradict yourself and actually claim the universe is all that exists….

There is the blind assumption of your worldview. You are assuming that the universe is all of reality. Thus your “Saganism” doesn’t even make sense.

No, I am defining the universe as all of reality.

Precisely my point, that definition is an assumption of your worldview that needs a reasonable defense. And that has been what we have been discussing here…. What is the ultimate reality? You seem to settle the issue by simply begging the definition to your position. Simply begging the definition is fallacious.

Before you object….. your minor distinction of “universe” and “observable universe” is a distinction without merit when you beg the definition that the universe as all of reality. Think about it.

If you're just trying to provide an explanation for the part of reality we have so far observed, you still have to explain the rest of it, including the origin of the creator itself.

Only if I defer to you begging the definition of reality. I do not defer. You need to defend your position. I contend that the universe is part of a larger reality than just the limited combination of the observed and unobserved universe. Hence it is discussion of differing worldviews.

Again you said…………..Full quote….

Because, for the umpteenth time, there is no "outside" the universe if you simply define the universe as everything that exists, even what we have yet to see, even what we will never see. You're leaning on the concept of a universe that has a fence around it, beyond which any manner of beings can be inserted for whatever reason; I am talking about being itself. If something IS, then it is part of WHAT IS. Thus: if God is, then God is part of what is, and could not be the explanation for all of what is. So I ask you: how can God exist while also being the cause of all that exists, unless...

…unpacked here…...

Because, for the umpteenth time, there is no "outside" the universe if you simply define the universe as everything that exists, even what we have yet to see, even what we will never see.

Your worldview is being defended by the fallacy of begging the question and….

You're leaning on the concept of a universe that has a fence around it, beyond which any manner of beings can be inserted for whatever reason; I am talking about being itself.

… A straw man fallacy of my worldview.

If something IS, then it is part of WHAT IS. Thus: if God is, then God is part of what is, and could not be the explanation for all of what is. So I ask you: how can God exist while also being the cause of all that exists, unless...

Reason demands that the necessary first cause must be eternal and uncaused. I contend that the first cause is God. You contend that the first cause is the universe. The discussion here is which worldview is better supported by the science and reason. Fun?

 

[remez]

That which is eternal has no cause. That is precisely what you’re inferring. Note also that you understand that this inference does not stand in violation of the law of cause and effect. You get it….that which is eternal has no cause, that was why you suggested that the universe is eternal, “Maybe it has no cause. It just is.” Yet you pretend not to understand my case of an eternal God, and object that God needs a cause.

Fair enough. You can say that your god has no cause just as I saw the universe has no cause. How do we know which is right?

By following the evidence. By determining which is better supported by the science and reasoning. That’s what we been discussing.
What is your reasoning………..????...here….

Well, there is good evidence that the universe exists, but no good evidence that your god exists. So, I'm gonna go with the universe.

I would agree with you that the universe exists. But to jump to God doesn’t exist by the reasoning of empiricism fails the test of reason. Empiricism is self-defeating.
I contend that the universe is not past eternal. Thus had a beginning. Thus had a cause. From there we can forensically determine the characteristics of that cause. Those characteristics point directly to God. That was briefly stated to match your brevity. Further that is only one line of reasoning I have for God’s existence.

Now which of our worldviews is better supported by science and reasoning?

Now which is more plausible with all the scientific evidence we have now…..the universe’s past is finite or eternal? To believe the universe is past eternal stands in opposition to what we scientifically know now.

All we scientifically know now is that the universe was in a hot, ultradense state about 14 billion years ago. Before that, we just don't know. That doesn't mean the universe isn't eternal. There's no way to rule that out. Therefore, there is currently no scientific necessity for a creator.

I’m not inferring that science can prove God’s existence. I’m stating the science supports premises in a cumulative case that concludes God’s existence.

So listen to Uncle Karl and follow the evidence where ever it leads. Which is more plausible the universe (all space, time, matter and energy) is past finite or eternal? The implications are incredible. Don’t be afraid to follow the evidence.