Do theists sort of think that belieiving in god makes god real?

[bilby]

If God doesn't own us, then his purpose is not something we need consider. If he does own us, then we have both the right and the duty to rebel, as do all slaves.

If you were to take that notion by rebelling against God i.e. the notion of freeing ones self from the laws of God (thieist POV).

It certainly does seem ironic when men become slaves ... of other men!

I fail to see the irony.

Slavery is slavery, and it is morally wrong, regardless of who is the master.

Slaves of gods or slaves of men (or slaves of aliens from the planet Zog), all have a right and a duty to refuse to obey their owner's demands.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that we are slaves; It's just that this is in inescapable conclusion if we accept the deeply flawed logic of the theists who say that our creator has the right to define our purpose. Fuck that noise.

IF we had a creator, we STILL would be under no obligation to do what he demands of us, and it would STILL be unjust for him to punish us for failing to do as he desires.

 

[Hermit]

Thus the objective purpose and meaning for our lives must logically be the reason he had to create us. Not some subjective purpose of our own creation, but actually the purpose he had for creating us. Good so far?

OK, you seem to be touching on two aspects, the meaning of life and morals I asked you about earlier. My questions about them were: What are they, and how do we know? In short, I want evidence. Specifically testable evidence. Will there be a time when you'll actually provide an answer them instead of beating about the bush?

Since God now exists we primarily need to examine his revelation to us to determine his relationship to us and the rest of his creation. There are two kinds revelation, general and special. I'll spare you the long lecture about them and assume you already know what they are and how they relate to one another.

Revelations are a dime a dozen. Millions of people are convinced they had one or more of them. Unless they can be tested empirically, they are just so many "inner voices". There are no tests to distinguish the inner voices of a schizophrenic paranoic from an inner voice that turns out to be the voice of God. Until there is such a test, any argument based on revelation is of no interest to me.

So, here is your mission, should you choose to accept it: Assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator of everything, how does that affect our understanding of the universe? How can we discover how we should then live our lives? It's a repeat of what I asked in post #58, but put in other words in the hope that you will understand the question

How does it affect our understanding of the universe? That would depend on what you are trying to understand.

How should you then live your life? That freely depends on your understanding of God. If God exists, wouldn't that truth be somewhat of compelling influence?

Evasions noted. Stop that. Just answer the question

I have asked you the same questions often enough now. "It depends" is a non-answer. Frankly, it seems to me that you just don't know.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

God did not bring himself into existence, he is eternal. You obviously understand the notion, because you are inferring the same reason by asserting the universe has and eternal past. The problem you have is that the universe most plausibly has a beginning.

You have presupposed the existence of an eternal creative supernatural entity for which no evidence exists and are proposing that this entity brought the universe into existence. Do you believe this or not? Its easy to suggest something that isn't there - the supernatural entity - is capable of being both eternal and capable of creating the universe. The proposition, because of what it is claimed to "be", requires no evidence to support its baseless assertion. It is just as easy to suggest that the same supernatural entity being referred to - in the absence of any evidence for its existence and its inability to defend itself through argument - cannot possibly "be". Merely claiming that the entity is eternal is not sufficient to release one from the problems inherent in arguing the same.

Claiming that the entity is both eternal and created the universe stacks one improbability atop another. The probability of the entity having always existed is not demonstrably less than the probability that it has never existed.

It doesn't actually matter which models or arguments this eternal creative supernatural entity is claimed to be an incontrovertible aspect of. It doesn't increase the overall probability of it existing.

The Big Bang gave rise to what could be merely the current inception of the universe. It could be that there was nothing before but perhaps there was a different form, this latest inception had a beginning, will have an end....perhaps another form will arise, then another and so on, potentially in an infinite chain. No beginning to the chain, a series of beginnings and ends as different forms are brought into existence and then peter out.
Beginnings and endings ad infinitum. The cyclic universe model.

 

[bilby]

My evidence….
I agree with you that the theory can only physically extend our scientific knowledge of the expansion back to Planck. But examining that 13.7 billion year extension overwhelming leads to a prediction that the universe began to exist. The BGV also adds to that prediction by asserting that any universe which is on average expanding cannot be past eternal. It is that simple.

Here is another way to consider the power of that inference.

We have approximately 8,020,300,637,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck seconds of time pointing back towards a beginning and ... only ...one... single ...solitary Planck second that cannot absolutely confirm that beginning.

No we don't. We have approximately 8,020,300,637,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck seconds of time during which nothing happened without a material cause, and in which there is not one shred of evidence for any spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator; and during which time the First Law of Thermodynamics ALWAYS applies; and in which, as a result, nothing ever begins ex-nihilo; and you want to throw all of that away to assume a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator in that one Planck time.

Your attempt to calculate the probability by only considering the things you think supports your pre-determined position is irrational, and a total failure; Indeed, you have done here EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. There's no reason to expect that the 1LoT should suddenly stop applying at the singularity, nor to expect that any previously unevidenced creator would suddenly become an influential factor at that point.

Plus.......
the added overwhelming evidence of the BGV.

What is a BGV? Google suggests that it is the German Federal Association of Health and Consumer Information; But I am not familiar with their work on the origins of the physical universe.

So it is far far far far far far far far ... more plausible (to say the least) that the universe had a absolute beginning as compared to it being eternal.

No, it isn't. It's never a good bet to assume that the 1LoT doesn't apply.

Serious Question. Please...............
Tell me what would you expect the evidence to look like......If the entire universe actually began to exist at that Planck second?
and.............
How would that evidence look any different from what we actually have right now?

I would expect it to look exactly the same in either case - as I have repeatedly said, we simply do not have any reason to choose one explanation (The universe is bounded in the past) over the other (The universe is infinite in the past). Both are perfectly reasonable inferences from the evidence we have; Nothing in our set of evidence and observations allows us to determine which is true. I lean towards an infinite past for the universe, for the reasons I have set out; But I am more than happy to change my mind if presented with good evidence that I am wrong. So far, i haven't seen any such evidence - and I find your arguments distinctly unimpressive.

 

[remez]

Note slightly altered order for clarity. You provided three responses. I felt it was easier to deal with your middle response first.

Since God now exists we primarily need to examine his revelation to us to determine his relationship to us and the rest of his creation. There are two kinds revelation, general and special. I'll spare you the long lecture about them and assume you already know what they are and how they relate to one another.

Revelations are a dime a dozen. Millions of people are convinced they had one or more of them. Unless they can be tested empirically, they are just so many "inner voices". There are no tests to distinguish the inner voices of a schizophrenic paranoic from an inner voice that turns out to be the voice of God. Until there is such a test, any argument based on revelation is of no interest to me.

Two issues here. Which revelation and how do you test it.

First. Since God exists who cares about human revelation. If God created us for a purpose then we have a purpose....plain and simple. If God does not exist then naturally we don't have an objective purpose. To each his own governed some by group dynamics to thrive.

Second. Of course they're testable. It is our epistemic duty to seek the truth and dispel falsehoods. Our worldviews are shaped by this duty. A revelation would be as testable as any worldview. It must be logically consistent, empirically adequate and existentially relevant. Which means its teachings cannot be self-contradictory, must match what we see in reality and must speak directly to how we actually live our lives.

Make sense?

But in order to begin address the all of your seemingly sincere concerns, you need to understand something major that is implicated in that concession. You and the universe did not have to be created. That implies that a personal eternal creator had a choice to create. Which means he had a reason/purpose to create you and the universe. Thus the objective purpose and meaning for our lives must logically be the reason he had to create us. Not some subjective purpose of our own creation, but actually the purpose he had for creating us. Good so far?

Note my questions above carefully. Because hidden in the implications of your concession is the answer to what is the purpose and meaning for this live. Agree or disagree?

Now I'll quickly throw in another implication here as well. You are possibly questioning well there are so many God's that we have to choose from.....so which one and which purpose? Still seems pretty subjective right? Not really. Only theism fits the description of the concession. Atheism for sure is out. All the other polytheistic God's are part of the universe, so rationally only theism fits the concession. Thus all that remains in the realm of possibility are the Abrahamic Theisms. Put very simply "for now" they pretty much share the same purpose for life. To know God and make him known. Is this implication clear so far?

OK, you seem to be touching on two aspects, the meaning of life and morals I asked you about earlier. My questions about them were: What are they, and how do we know? In short, I want evidence. Specifically testable evidence. Will there be a time when you'll actually provide an answer them instead of beating about the bush?

Please examine carefully. I copied in my full quote to you and bold faced the only part you actually quoted to show you I had answered your question. The underline part was the answer to your question. Right there in the part you did not quote. Granted I was addressing this in a general sense because you weren't being very specific. Again from above the purpose of life and the moral code rest upon his revelation.

Now I have two issues for you.....
You're insinuating that all knowledge must rest on empirical evidence.
That is a philosophical position. More precisely, it is an epistemology commonly known as empiricism.

Can you please provide some empirical evidence that empiricism is the best epistemology?
with follow the up..............
How do you test "the purpose of life" empirically?

So, here is your mission, should you choose to accept it: Assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator of everything, how does that affect our understanding of the universe? How can we discover how we should then live our lives? It's a repeat of what I asked in post #58, but put in other words in the hope that you will understand the question

How does it affect our understanding of the universe? That would depend on what you are trying to understand.

Evasions noted. Stop that. Just answer the question

I have asked you the same questions often enough now. "It depends" is a non-answer. Frankly, it seems to me that you just don't know.

I'm not evading. I just can't read your mind...........
I've certainly addressed the issue of purpose, because that is pretty narrow in scope.

But examine your question about understanding the universe.
It is wide open.

Are the nature of concerns concerns scientific, metaphysical, theological, anthropomorphical, eschatological, philosophical, etc.

Do you want to understand a HOW.....WHY.....WHAT........WHERE.......WHEN........IF ?????
About what....galaxies, love, free will, cosmology, evil, star formation ?????

Do you want to understand how is works? Do you want to understand the why the universe is comprehensible? Do you want the understand when it actually began to exist?

Or are you using the term "universe" not as a whole but a variable for any part of the universe.....Do you want to understand how stars are formed? Do you want understand where the fundamental constants of nature came from? Do you want to understand the fundamental nature of particles? Do numbers exist?

Or are you asking of more spiritual concerns ....Do you want to understand the how the universe declares the glory of God? Do you want to understand why "it" was made? If evil exists why God?

Comparative understandings What came first the self-replication cell or DNA? Mind-body dualism? material vs immaterial. Good vs evil. particle or wave? cosmological models reflecting a finite past vs an eternal past? Logic vs logos. Mind over matter?

enough????

And here is the punch line.....Now how does knowing that God exists affect all of those different understandings?
It would logically range from NONE...........to..........ALL,

BECAUSE IT LOGICALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND!

Understand?

 

[remez]

You have presupposed the existence of an eternal creative supernatural entity for which no evidence exists and are proposing that this entity brought the universe into existence.

First ….No it was conceded for the sake of argument that the theistic God existed. I was not asked to provide reason he existed. Presumably to get past the KCA the discuss what next.

Second. The KCA does not presuppose he exists. It concludes he exists. So be careful with what I post with Hermit because the context is different.

The Big Bang gave rise to what could be merely the current inception of the universe

The SBBM most plausibly infers that the universe (all space, matter and time) began to exist. Evidences….. An expanding universe, CMB, second law of thermodynamics, GTR, temp ripples in the CMB seeding galaxies, redshift, all of the space-time theorems specifically the BGV theorem, observed time dilation in gamma-ray bursts, SBBM, the decay times of distant supernova light intensity, H-He abundance, inflation, etc.

From the cosmologists themselves….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Hawking and Krauss each just wrote a book purporting their theories to the cause of an universe that began to exist.

Believe me I could keep right on going.

It could be that there was nothing before

Then why is there something rather than nothing? Think about it.

but perhaps there was a different form, this latest inception had a beginning, will have an end

There was no space, no matter, no time so what was this possible form?

No beginning to the chain, a series of beginnings and ends as different forms are brought into existence and then peter out.

Fails the BGV theorem.

The cyclic universe model.

Ok…aka oscillating model (OM).
Theoretically they are fun to ponder but they are physically impossible for many reasons. Quick three. 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 thirdly….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.

 

[remez]

Your attempt to calculate the probability by only considering the things you think supports your pre-determined position is irrational, and a total failure;

You presented an if-then, binary, 50/50 chance notion by asserting I had no more evidence than you. My numbers were presented as evidence against your faulty binary notion. And those numbers, at that point, coupled with the presence of an expanding universe were inferring that the universe began to exist. How is that a predetermined irrational position?

No we don't. We have approximately 8,020,300,637,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck seconds of time during which nothing happened without a material cause, and in which there is not one shred of evidence for any spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator; and during which time the First Law of Thermodynamics ALWAYS applies; and in which, as a result, nothing ever begins ex-nihilo; and you want to throw all of that away to assume a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator in that one Planck time.

Classic Fallacy of composition. Seriously re-examine your logic.
Also....
I'm not throwing anything away. The SBBM most plausibly infers (not assumes) that the universe (the all space, matter and time) began to exist.

Plus.......
the added overwhelming evidence of the BGV.

What is a BGV? Google suggests that it is the German Federal Association of Health and Consumer Information; But I am not familiar with their work on the origins of the physical universe.

Well to me right now it is two things. First it is the paradigm theorem that indicates that any expanding universe has a beginning. Secondly it indicates you don't know what you are talking about. That would be like me arguing against common descent and not recognizing or knowing the what the term LUCA meant. If I had to look it up then I really wasn't up to date on the issue. The BGV has been a battlefront term for over a decade.

I would expect it to look exactly the same in either case - as I have repeatedly said, we simply do not have any reason to choose one explanation (The universe is bounded in the past) over the other (The universe is infinite in the past). Both are perfectly reasonable inferences from the evidence we have;

With math that bad.......and evidence this limited......

Nothing in our set of evidence and observations allows us to determine which is true.

I get.................

I lean towards an infinite past for the universe, for the reasons I have set out; But I am more than happy to change my mind if presented with good evidence that I am wrong. So far, i haven't seen any such evidence - and I find your arguments distinctly unimpressive.

....your conclusion.

 

[blastula]

remez, that you're still using BGV means you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[remez]

remez, that you're still using BGV means you don't know what you're talking about.

Empty personal assertion.....with nothing actionable to respond to......means you're right. Right?

 

[blastula]

Your own link shows don't know or that you're playing games. http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

 

[remez]

Your own link shows don't know or that you're playing games. http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Ditto

 

[blastula]

I guess you missed this part.

Some people claim your work proves the existence of God, or at least of a divine moment of creation. What do you think?

I don’t think it proves anything one way or another.

I went to a meeting of some theologians and cosmologists. Basically, I realized these theologians have the same problem with God. What was He doing before He created the universe? Why did He suddenly decide to create the universe?

For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe. In fact, we now have models where that’s not necessary—the universe spontaneously appears, quantum mechanically.

In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.

As such, there is some probability for the universe to pop out of “nothing.” You can find the relative probability for it to be this size or that size and have various properties, but there will not be a particular cause for any of it, just probabilities.

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

And I'm sure you've seen the Carroll=Craig debate. Here's a pertinent part. https://youtu.be/wqKObSeim2w?t=57m36s

BGV does not help you.

 

[remez]

I guess you missed this part.

Some people claim your work proves the existence of God, or at least of a divine moment of creation. What do you think?

I don’t think it proves anything one way or another.

I went to a meeting of some theologians and cosmologists. Basically, I realized these theologians have the same problem with God. What was He doing before He created the universe? Why did He suddenly decide to create the universe?

For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe. In fact, we now have models where that’s not necessary—the universe spontaneously appears, quantum mechanically.

In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.

As such, there is some probability for the universe to pop out of “nothing.” You can find the relative probability for it to be this size or that size and have various properties, but there will not be a particular cause for any of it, just probabilities.

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

And I'm sure you've seen the Carroll=Craig debate. Here's a pertinent part. https://youtu.be/wqKObSeim2w?t=57m36s

BGV does not help you.

Thank you.
Now I can respond.
I would never claim that the BGV proves God exists.
I'm offering the BGV as evidence that the universe began to exist.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

First ….No it was conceded for the sake of argument that the theistic God existed. I was not asked to provide reason he existed. Presumably to get past the KCA the discuss what next.

Second. The KCA does not presuppose he exists. It concludes he exists. So be careful with what I post with Hermit because the context is different.

An argument or a model that presupposes the existence of such an entity or concludes that such an entity exists - the supernatural is an integral part of its structure. Something arose or was constructed by the actions of a being that somehow manages to exist in no meaningful or observable sense, and has existed eternally without having itself been created - on the basis that it is eternal it lacks the ability to create itself. How is it viable or plausible that a being which does not exist, and which does not have the ability to create itself, can somehow create the universe? We may face a similar challenge with the concept of an uncaused spontaneous event bringing the universe into existence but it has a smaller challenge on the eternity front.

The KCA did, however, began with the desired answer "God did it" in mind and drew that unsurprising conclusion.

It could be that there was nothing before
(but perhaps there was a different form, this latest inception had a beginning, will have an end)

Then why is there something rather than nothing? Think about it.

I was acknowledging the concept of nothingness as a possibility - albeit a difficult one to conceptualise - but perhaps there has always been something in one form or another. Why would it matter if the cyclic model appears to be a mess - how would you ascertain that a particular form at one point (with a set of laws which may be different to laws that operate in other forms in the chain) would be possible/operable or not? Understanding changes through time and today's mess could be tomorrow's answer.

 

[bilby]

remez, that you're still using BGV means you don't know what you're talking about.

His use of a lot of words to belittle my enquiry as to its meaning, while STILL totally failing to tell me what it stands for, suggests to me either that he doesn't know what he's talking about; or that he knows that what he is talking about doesn't support his position unless it remains obscure.

Google doesn't know what BGV means in this context, so the claim that it has been a 'battlefront term' for over a decade would appear to be bullshit - what intellectual battle of the past decade has left so little trace on the internet as to push its acronyms off the first few pages of Google results?

If you ask me, his whole position is FPDO.

 

[remez]

What is a BGV? Google suggests that it is the German Federal Association of Health and Consumer Information; But I am not familiar with their work on the origins of the physical universe.

Well to me right now it is two things. First it is the paradigm theorem that indicates that any expanding universe has a beginning. Secondly it indicates you don't know what you are talking about. That would be like me arguing against common descent and not recognizing or knowing the what the term LUCA meant. If I had to look it up then I really wasn't up to date on the issue. The BGV has been a battlefront term for over a decade.

His use of a lot of words to belittle my enquiry as to its meaning, while STILL totally failing to tell me what it stands for,

Wow.
I bold faced it for you this time. It's a theorem.

Google "BGV Theorem"
Or
Simply follow the several links I’ve already cited.

From the cosmologists themselves….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Now catch up.

 

[remez]

An argument or a model that presupposes the existence of such an entity or concludes that such an entity exists

The argument again does not presuppose God exists. That would be circular reasoning. The argument was developed to conclude God exists. Which is standard reasoning. Huge difference.

the supernatural is an integral part of its structure.

Yes. By supernatural (now forward SN) we simply mean beyond nature. If nature had a beginning and nature could not cause itself then its cause is from beyond nature. Simple reasoning still rules. No SN does not mean a stupid super squirrel could have caused the universe to exist. That is desperate fantasy.

How is it viable or plausible that a being which does not exist, and which does not have the ability to create itself, can somehow create the universe?

It’s not. But what you described there is not God either. What you described there is a logical impossibility. I’m not sure you understand the logical distinction between eternal and created. An eternal being was never created and a created being is not eternal.

God is eternal, which means he has always been. A being that is eternal cannot be a created being, because it wouldn’t be eternal. Think about it.

The KCA did, however, began with the desired answer "God did it" in mind and drew that unsurprising conclusion.

How do you form an argument with no goal in mind?

Then why is there something rather than nothing? Think about it.

I was acknowledging the concept of nothingness as a possibility - albeit a difficult one to conceptualise - but perhaps there has always been something in one form or another.

Think harder.

Ok…aka called oscillating model (OM).
Theoretically they are fun to ponder but they are physically impossible for many reasons. Quick three. 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 thirdly….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.

Why would it matter if the cyclic model appears to be a mess

It matters because your model is not viable.
Remember you were charged to present a viable cosmological model the inferred that the universe was both finite and infinite as you stated earlier.

Understanding changes through time and today's mess could be tomorrow's answer.

Isn’t that a belief in something without or even in spite of the evidence?
I provided a link that told you why it won’t work and even if it did it would still need a beginning anyway. That is the way science works. So do you have viable model that infers a universe with an infinte and finite past?

 

[bilby]

Wow.
I bold faced it for you this time. It's a theorem.

Google "BGV Theorem"
Or
Simply follow the several links I’ve already cited.

From the cosmologists themselves….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Now catch up.

It may well be a theorem. But you still haven't told me what the fuck it is. 'The Paradigm Theorem' would be TPT, and the word paradigm almost always means 'the speaker is a wanker', in my experience.

If you refuse to make your case on the grounds that YOU know what you are talking about, and everyone else is beneath you, then I am under no obligation to give the slightest further credence to your crazy and unsupported nonsense.

You have not only failed to convince me of anything; you have failed to even present your case to me.

What a pointlessly arrogant waste of time your religion is.

 

[Juma]

I guess you missed this part.

Some people claim your work proves the existence of God, or at least of a divine moment of creation. What do you think?

I don’t think it proves anything one way or another.

I went to a meeting of some theologians and cosmologists. Basically, I realized these theologians have the same problem with God. What was He doing before He created the universe? Why did He suddenly decide to create the universe?

For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe. In fact, we now have models where that’s not necessary—the universe spontaneously appears, quantum mechanically.

In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.

As such, there is some probability for the universe to pop out of “nothing.” You can find the relative probability for it to be this size or that size and have various properties, but there will not be a particular cause for any of it, just probabilities.

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

And I'm sure you've seen the Carroll=Craig debate. Here's a pertinent part. https://youtu.be/wqKObSeim2w?t=57m36s

BGV does not help you.

Thank you.
Now I can respond.
I would never claim that the BGV proves God exists.
I'm offering the BGV as evidence that the universe began to exist.

But BGV is not evidence that the universe began.

What BGV says is that for classical space time (that is: if we ignore quatum mechanics) there must be a beginning if the universe is always expanding.


Thus one (of many) ways to where your use of BGV fails is if the universe periodically shrinks and expands.

 

[Hermit]

If God created us for a purpose then we have a purpose

So you keep saying. Give me an example of a purpose we have, how you know that purpose was given to us by god and how you ascertain that you are not mistaken.