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

[Learner]

no it doesnt. wether it expands/contracts doesnt say anything about wether it is bounded.

The "contents within" the universe is what I was refering to, which does seem to have limits i.e. how far a physical universe would reach before changing direction in this theory. Are there theories as to.. what it is .. that forces the limitation (as I can only put it if not boundries) for an expansion reaching a threshold point before the contraction?

Or in my laymans way of questioning; when the universe is expanding: Is it pushing against another opposing force or is it..there's actually a "nothing" there (what ever this nothing would be) which would then seem to me, boundries of some sort... a containment if you will.

If it doesn't say in the theory about being bounded - limits of expanding distances, then the idea with unknowns , (I think) doesn't suggest BGV's theorem fails.

 

[James Brown]

If faith is considered to be a reliable means of gaining
knowledge, it is obvious that reason and faith must differ in some way. If they are identical, it is
senseless and misleading to use these two words to denote the same intellectual process. “I accept
this as true on the basis of reason” cannot be synonymous with, “I accept this as true on the basis of
faith.” The Christian who attempts to reconcile reason and faith is committed to the position that,
while these concepts are not the same, their difference does not render them incompatible...

Consider this question: Why does the Christian employ two concepts, reason and faith, to designate
different methods of acquiring knowledge, instead of just using the concept of reason by itself? In other words,
why is it necessary for the Christian to introduce the idea of faith at all? What purpose does it serve that is not
served by reason?

The answer is obvious: the Christian wishes to claim as knowledge beliefs that have not been
(and often cannot be) rationally demonstrated, so he posits faith as an alternative method of
acquiring knowledge. Faith permits the Christian to claim the status of truth for a belief even
though it cannot meet the rational test of truth...

The Christian who postures as an advocate of reason is often quite subtle in his attack on reason.
Yes, he says, reason provides man with knowledge of reality; yes, reason is vital to man’s
existence; yes, man’s rational capacity is his distinguishing characteristic—but some aspects of
existence cannot be comprehended by man. Some facts are closed to rational understanding.
Reason is fine as far as it goes, but it is limited. And here faith makes its grand entrance. Faith is
called upon where reason is said to fail, and faith is represented as a supplement to reason, not an
enemy. In the words of Aquinas, faith “perfects” reason....

Atheism: The Case Against God, George H. Smith


Waiting for a bus is a function of statistical probabilities, not faith. A person stands at a designated point at a predetermined time, and based on previous experiments, confidently waits for a bus. No amount of faith will make the bus stop in his kitchen, nor does a woman of faith expect a bus to arrive every five minutes between the hours of midnight and four A.M. Meanwhile, in a community in which bus service is notoriously unreliable, one may end up standing on the corner all day, faith be damned.

 

[remez]

A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin had a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters 90 (15): 151301 (2003), titled "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Physical Review Letters 90 (15): 151301. William Lane Craig loves to quote it, misinterpreting it as he goes. In case you don't know who William Lane Craif is, let me tell you. He is a prominent apologist,

Return………………………

To all the Folks here challenging the BGV being presented as evidence for my position because it plausibly infers that the universe began to exist, a particular strong theme has presented itself here that I feel I need to address. I’m working on just how to address and present it to you all. In particular I’ll address the charge of my, and WLC’s, alleged misrepresentations of the BGV. It will take some thought and a little time to put it together. I'm particularly struggling with just how to format it, so I beg your patience. It is my intention to present it to you as soon as I can put it altogether. Sorry the events of this weekend will be challenging for my time. Have a great and safe weekend.

Specifically, I wanted to address the link provided by Hermit. I have actually always desired to address this piece. It’s been around awhile and has always troubled me. Hermit finally presented me with an opportunity to address it.

AA is the Atheist Author. (from Hermit's post 123 link misrepresenting it as he goes)

Whenever William Lane Craig is forced to retreat from his use of the Standard Big Bang model, he will often cite a paper by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin:

Right off the bat, this sets the tone of AA’s honesty.

Whenever William Lane Craig is forced to retreat from his use of the Standard Big Bang model

What in the world does that mean? Sounds like WLC would need to abandon his SBBM as evidence supporting premise 2 of the KCA. He has never done that and neither would I. The SBBM is strong evidence to infer that our universe began to exist. And it will logically remain so until it is replaced (reasonably never) with a better cosmological model. The thought of retreat when all is in your favor is ridiculous.
Let’s keep following the AA’s distortion here….

…he will often cite a paper by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin:

…..so when WLC is in this pseudo-retreat from bad philosophy he then desperately resorts to quoting the BGV as a last resort. Seriously get real. If any of you have ever seen a WLC debate (about evidence for God) he always goes first. When he presents the KCA he offers the supporting evidence of the SBBM and the BGV for premise 2 right out front, before the poor atheist has yet to even speak. Where is the forced retreat or last resort in that? AA’s opening statement is a flat out distortion of reality. Please provide evidence to the contrary, if you think I’m wrong here. I’ll accept your silence on this point to be a concession to my assertion of distortion.
Next……

…three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
-W.L Craig “Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe”

That is an accurate quote of WLC. But pay attention to the distortions. As already pointed out this was in no way presented in retreat. Also note the italicized “any” by our distorting AA. He is going to take that “any” out of context to disparage WLC’s philosophy.

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”)

See? WLC said, as I would, “any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history." Note that the “any universe” clearly does not mean ALL universes as AA distorts. Even a child can see AA is lying there. Anyone with an open mind should see that. But I’ll bet those you who sourced AA’s trash didn’t see it. You believed in the dumb lie. Let’s HONESTLY check that sentence again in its entirety.

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

The is precisely mine and WLC’s position here. Neither one of us would claim that it absolutely declares a beginning. But what does AA claim about WLC, the same thing several of you have done with WLC and me…..……

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

YEP. The classic strawman fallacy. What is presumptuous here is AA’s strawman. Obviously some of you Folks honestly believed his dishonesty again. Also his counter of the HHM is a non sequitur. On top of that the HHM does not even correspond to the REAL universe anyway.

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

Notice the IN SHORT ANSWER IS YES the theorem implies the universe had a beginning. Now if you wish to present some sort of credence to the no part, be my guest, I’m ready to get into the subtleties. I know what Vilenkin was reasoning there.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims).

I agree that nothing in the paper suggests a beginning from absolute nothingness. I would not say that the BGV claims any more than the universe is most likely not eternal in the past. It supports my position (premise 2 of KCA) that the universe most plausibly had a beginning. A beginning from nothing is supported by another line of reasoning and has nothing to do with the BGV. I don’t have any problem here with the BGV, other than the distorted strawman AA and you folks construct from it.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

“What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.”

What was there at the beginning is a different issue. Neither WLC or I are asserting that the BGV asserts nothingness. That’s a different part of the KCA. So to connect your theories as to WHAT was at the beginning has nothing to do with the BGV. Again, the BGV only infers that our expanding universe is not past eternal. So how is that misrepresenting the BGV? Fact is AA and you Folks don’t seem to know the BGV or the KCA well enough to recognize your own fallacy.

This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.

Again AA is conflating the inference of BGV with a separate issue of What was there at the beginning. To claim that the theists says the BGV actually states that the universe began from nothing is a strawman. Again the only misrepresenting going on here is AA’s representation of the relationship between the BGV and KCA.

Oddly, I’ve been unable to find any article of Craig’s (scholarly or otherwise) which actually quotes from the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper. Instead he almost exclusively quotes a paragraph from Vilenkin’s 2006 book Many Worlds in One (amazon) which discusses the 2003 paper:

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 (pg. 176).

Yes WLC and I often present that quote. It is a powerful quote that supports our position. Nothing wrong with that. Quit whining. Also I have presented other references from Vilenkin as well. Particularly his presentation where he explains how the other purposed eternal cosmological models fail the BGV. Especially the OM and MV scenarios. I even provided a link where he walks you through the BGV and what it means for those models.

WLC and Vilenkin have exchange emails over this alleged misrepresentation charge stemming from the Krauss debate. The correspondence can be found at WLC’S RF website ……. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...sclosure-and-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem/ Read it. Vilenkin actually states the WLC represents his theorem accurately. AA has no point there whatsoever. Just a demonstration of poor research skills. His search is analogous to a bank robber on the run trying to find a cop.

Now that’s a pretty straight forward quote which at least seems to favor Craig’s argument, but on the very same page Vilenkin writes,
”Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

I’m absolutely fine with the opening sentence of the Vilenkin’s quote, since it is offered as of PIECE of evidence for God’s existence and not the whole argument. But when he then states the question……

”Is it a proof of the existence of God?”

… he commits a misrepresentation of the KCA.

First he suggests that we assert that the BGV proves Gods existence. Again neither WLC nor I would make that claim.

Secondly there is a subtle shift of equivocation from evidence to proof which is where he and you Folks continually get it wrong.

Thirdly notice it is not a quote of science. It is his personal opinion on, a specific possibility that had the context of theism. I would not expect anything different from an atheistic scientist. But again it is a non-scientific opinion. I’m not disagreeing with his science but his philosophy in this one area. I consider Vilenkin to be an incredible scientist, but that does not mean I have to agree with his opinions on theism. Again just to be clear….here is where I disagree with his non-scientific reasoning..............Specifically here I think Vilenkin, AA and most of you folks, jump too quickly from the conclusion of BGV which only supports premise 2 of the KCA, to the conclusion of the KCA that God exists. Meaning you are stretching the evidence farther than we do. He fails to account for the rest of the reasoning between premise 2 and the conclusion of the KCA. So to present that a theist jumps from p2 (supported by BGV) to the conclusion God exists, is a strawman fallacy. And many of you keep doing this with me as well.

Lastly here….Vilenkin does say it is way too simplistic and that there is more to consider. And my response is yes yes, yes. There is the rest of the argument from premise 2 to the conclusion that deals with his purported cautions.

Vilenkin then concludes this statement by suggesting that cosmic origins could be described in “purely scientific terms” – a task which he attempts in the chapter which follows.

And my reply to that…. “Could be”….. means…… could be. Happy hunting. However, I reason that his own theorem and the rest of the KCA, place the odds heavily against him.

My major concern is that so many of you uncritically accept propaganda like this to form unreasonable ad hominem attacks against WLC. And you continually throw the same baseless propaganda at my honest efforts here to present a reasonable defense of my worldview. Be fair and be a little more critical of trash like AA’s.

Appendix A
Another bad philosophical narrative I keep getting is some form of IDKism or Llyod Christmas Math. Those are terms I made up but have used here many times. Here is the notion……we can’t know for sure that the universe began to exist, then A) it’s better to be ignorant- IDKism or B) all possibilities are 50/50—Lloyd Christmas Math. That is just simply bad reasoning either way you go. Choice A presents a skepticism so harsh that nothing is to be believed including the notion “That since you don’t know something for certain then its best to plead ignorance.” Choice B) is “Lloyd Christmas approach to Probability Math”, completely laughable. You are treating any super longshot possibility on equal par with the most reasonable possibility just because you still have a chance. Lets just simply ignore the weight of the probabilities and declare any chance possibility equal to the others. Example since you can’t say for sure that the BGV infers that our universe had a beginning then it’s still a 50/50 shot for an eternal past.

Observe all of my statements regarding these uncertain outcomes are always (to the best of my ability) phrased in this form. “The best inference” or “most plausible” etc. I have not ever suggested in this context we know for certain.

 

[remez]

Remez likes using acronyms. In post #98 he managed to string four of them together. I discovered that they are all favourite arguments of William Lane Craig. So, if you don't know an acronym and Google buries the one meaning Remez might be employing under lots of others he definitely does not, google for the acronym and add the search expression "William Lane Craig" or Reasonable (LOL) Faith.

As to the conflict with bilby over the BGV abbreviation, I felt he should have known about it, because he has been intensely involved in threads with me in the past where I've used it dozens of times. So I challenged his knowledge of the context, because it should have been apparent by now due to our history. Be careful what you assume about my intentions.

Bilby asked what BVG stands for. A simple link to it, even if it just points to what creationwiki.org makes of it, would have been satisfactory. Instead you just kept beating about the bush.

I already explained it to you. I was referring to his and my history. You need to gain a time perspective here, remember you are new here and don’t know of our previous battles. Your chastisement of my manner is a non sequitur for does not reflect the historical reasoning I provided for my manner.

By the way, I have repeatedly asked you a question. After each of your evasions I have reworded it. No answer - not even another evasion - to my latest attempt.

Which was………..

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.

I did…………
Post 96 …..I gave one of the main theistic purposes of life.
Post 105 …I explained the criterion of the how to know.
Both in the context that God exists.

 

[Hermit]

Post 96 …..I gave one of the main theistic purposes of life.
Post 105 …I explained the criterion of the how to know.
Both in the context that God exists.

OK, so our purpose in life is to know God and make him known, and we know this through revelation. Fucking theists. Different day, same shit.

 

[remez]

No you haven't. This thread wasn't started 'years' ago. The first post was in May 2017. Less than eight months ago.

Your commitment to truth and accuracy is noted.

Here is the post were responding to.

As to the conflict with bilby over the BGV abbreviation, I felt he should have known about it, because he has been intensely involved in threads with me in the past where I've used it dozens of times. So I challenged his knowledge of the context, because it should have been apparent by now due to our history. Be careful what you assume about my intentions.

It was a post I addressed to Hermit. Yet you responded. I mention this only as evidence that you obviously in the course of these threads read my responses to others as well as the ones to you.

Note what I stated carefully. “I felt he should have known about it, because he has been intensely involved in threads with me in the past where I've used it dozens of times.” Threads in the past not this thread. Here is just one quick example: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...Kinds-of-Reasoning-Scientific-Method-vs-Faith . It occurred back at the end of the year 2015 and journeyed into the spring of 2016. In that thread I specifically presented the BGV as the theorem that infers that our universe began to exist. I referred to it numerous times and linked the same references I did here. It was a great battle. And the war has continued since then on the same battlegrounds. I particularly remember that one because you and I exchanged a fun skirmish of the mathematical proof that 1=2. Ring any bells?
So……

No you haven't. This thread wasn't started 'years' ago. The first post was in May 2017. Less than eight months ago.

Your commitment to truth and accuracy is noted.

… it is not my commitment to the truth that is at issue here. It’s simply your memory.

 

[remez]

Easy fix.
Simple error of logic.
God being all powerful does not mean he can do what is logically impossible. That would be like saying Picasso isn't a great artist because he can't even draw a picture of a one ended stick. It’s not that God is not all powerful it's that your challenge is purely illogical.

Not quite so simple to "fix".
By your own words your god is not all powerful BECAUSE "he" cannot do what is logically impossible.
Cannot create or destroy itself.
We aren't talking about a human being so your comparison is not valid. But feel free to go into how your god operates or thinks if you wish.
The god you speak is not all powerful. Is it just "very" powerful?

Let’s try to reason through this.

I’m certainly asserting that God is all powerful and logical impossibilities logically do not exist in reality.

But you are trying to make a coherent case that God is not all powerful because logical impossibilities do exist.

So let’s examine the coherency of the existence of logical impossibilities and what it means for the both of us.

If logical impossibilities do not exist then your case logically fails. Very simple.

But…………..

If logical impossibilities do exist then you have no coherent case to conclude God does not exist. Because if logical impossibilities do exist then there is nothing incoherent about God being both all-powerful and not able to destroy himself.

Simple?

Here is where you are precisely missing the epistemology. You can only assert that from some epistemological position akin to scientism.

For it is exactly by REASON that I argue that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe. You say I have no evidence. Yet my evidence is the same universe you are positing for your position. So how can you assert that I have no evidence? Please explain.

The universe is evidence for what? Itself. Nothing more than that. There is no direct evidence, there is an inference based on belief.

Now let’s try to reason this one through.

You are saying no direct evidence, just inference based on belief.

First. My inference is not based on belief. It is based on evidence of science and reasoning. My position that the universe most plausibly had a beginning is reasoned from the direct evidence of the SBBM and the BGV, not belief.

Second. “The universe is evidence for what? Itself. Nothing more than that.” You can only say this from some foundation of empiricism. But here is your big problem.

Your foundation of empiricism is something you believe that has no empirical evidence. You can only infer that empiricism is the standard of belief, because you can’t empirically support it. But you just noted that inference cannot be employed as evidence. Thus your empiricism is self-refuting. There is no epistemology that you can employ that disallows reasonable inference, because it would end up being self-refuting.

I’m hanging my coat on reason. Is reason material or immaterial?

I'm not sure it is actually possible to argue whether reason itself is either material or immaterial.

First. Of course you can’t argue whether reason is immaterial or material, because you have no empirical evidence. That is the limit of your epistemology. Nothing is reasonable unless you have empirical evidence. Which was my point above. You end up refuting yourself.

Second. “What it relies on, however, I would say is material in the first instance.” Where is your empirical evidence for that? You can’t just reasonable infer it, because that is against your rules. You must be consistent.

Again you are espousing an indefensible epistemology. I have provided reason and evidence.
So as precisely as you can, explain how you know what you know. What counts as evidence and why does it count?

This assumes - for sake or argument - the pre-existence of an eternal creator and the requirement to create the universe.

You have it completely backwards. It does not assume an eternal creator exists. It reasons that an eternal creator exists. The KCA builds a case that the CAUSE (not God) of the universe must possess these characteristics….. Transcends the universe, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, changeless, personal, intelligent, and all powerful. The only theology is this…..a CAUSE with those characteristics is what everyone understands to be God. We are not assuming God, we are reasoning God.

 

[remez]

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.

Post 96 …..I gave one of the main theistic purposes of life.
Post 105 …I explained the criterion of the how to know.
Both in the context that God exists.

OK, so our purpose in life is to know God and make him known, and we know this through revelation.

You got one right at least. Let's re-examine the how…….post 105……

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 by some 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?

Bold faced it this time for you.

I also asked you to address this from that post which you ignored….

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?

Be fair.

 

[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.

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.

That is playing games. You use BGV as part of your argument for God, because you think a beginning helps prove God. But it doesn't help because, 1) BGV doesn't prove a beginning (as you admit) or even tip evidence in its favor (which you don't admit), and 2) even if there is a beginning, God is still unnecessary.

Even the G of BGV doesn't believe a beginning is more likely. And here's this from the Christian cosmologist Don Page.

In view of these beliefs of mine, I am not convinced that most philosophical arguments for the existence of God are very persuasive. In particular, I am highly skeptical of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I shall quote here from one of your slides, Bill:

1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

I do not believe that the first premise is metaphysically necessary, and I am also not at all sure that our universe had a beginning. (I do believe that the first premise is true in the actual world, since I do believe that God exists as a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence, but I do not see that this premise is true in all logically possible worlds.)

I agree with you, Sean, that we learn our ideas of causation from the lawfulness of nature and from the directionality of the second law of thermodynamics that lead to the commonsense view that causes precede their effects (or occur at the same time, if Bill insists). But then we have learned that the laws of physics are CPT invariant (essentially the same in each direction of time), so in a fundamental sense the future determines the past just as much as the past determines the future. I agree that just from our experience of the one-way causation we observe within the universe, which is just a merely effective description and not fundamental, we cannot logically derive the conclusion that the entire universe has a cause, since the effective unidirectional causation we commonly experience is something just within the universe and need not be extrapolated to a putative cause for the universe as a whole.

 

[Hermit]

You got one right at least. Let's re-examine the how…….post 105……

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 by some 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?

Bold faced it this time for you.

I also asked you to address this from that post which you ignored….

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?

Be fair.

OK, now apply the part you bolded to: "our purpose in life is to know God and make him known". In particular, how do you test if the proposition "our purpose in life is to know God and make him known" holds true?

As for empiricism, one thing at a time. We'll discuss it when appropriate.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Let’s try to reason through this.

I’m certainly asserting that God is all powerful and logical impossibilities logically do not exist in reality.

But you are trying to make a coherent case that God is not all powerful because logical impossibilities do exist.

So let’s examine the coherency of the existence of logical impossibilities and what it means for the both of us.

If logical impossibilities do not exist then your case logically fails. Very simple.

But…………..

If logical impossibilities do exist then you have no coherent case to conclude God does not exist. Because if logical impossibilities do exist then there is nothing incoherent about God being both all-powerful and not able to destroy himself.

Simple?

Anything but simple. Logical impossibilities may well not exist in reality. But the god that you believe in (and that you argue is the creator of the universe) does not exist so its not as simple as saying that the same logic definitely applies to a non-existent being. A being that exists outside of logic and reality but to "whom" logical rules need to be - perhaps sometimes selectively to give the believer wriggle room - applied? That sounds like quite a stretch to me.

Here is where you are precisely missing the epistemology. You can only assert that from some epistemological position akin to scientism.

For it is exactly by REASON that I argue that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe. You say I have no evidence. Yet my evidence is the same universe you are positing for your position. So how can you assert that I have no evidence? Please explain.

Now let’s try to reason this one through.

You are saying no direct evidence, just inference based on belief.

First. My inference is not based on belief. It is based on evidence of science and reasoning. My position that the universe most plausibly had a beginning is reasoned from the direct evidence of the SBBM and the BGV, not belief.

Second. “The universe is evidence for what? Itself. Nothing more than that.” You can only say this from some foundation of empiricism. But here is your big problem.

Your foundation of empiricism is something you believe that has no empirical evidence. You can only infer that empiricism is the standard of belief, because you can’t empirically support it. But you just noted that inference cannot be employed as evidence. Thus your empiricism is self-refuting. There is no epistemology that you can employ that disallows reasonable inference, because it would end up being self-refuting.

First. Of course you can’t argue whether reason is immaterial or material, because you have no empirical evidence. That is the limit of your epistemology. Nothing is reasonable unless you have empirical evidence. Which was my point above. You end up refuting yourself.

Second. “What it relies on, however, I would say is material in the first instance.” Where is your empirical evidence for that? You can’t just reasonable infer it, because that is against your rules. You must be consistent.

You have it completely backwards. It does not assume an eternal creator exists. It reasons that an eternal creator exists. The KCA builds a case that the CAUSE (not God) of the universe must possess these characteristics….. Transcends the universe, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, changeless, personal, intelligent, and all powerful. The only theology is this…..a CAUSE with those characteristics is what everyone understands to be God. We are not assuming God, we are reasoning God.

Can you pinpoint the exact point at which you depart from science and utilise just reason? I do not see how you can argue that the entirety of your approach is scientific. You've said both powerful and all-powerful. Which is it? Also these characteristics: they seem to be appeals. "It must be the case because look at what it possesses." How can a non-existent being be both immaterial and all powerful? (assuming you meant to say all powerful). You would think that with this wishlist of superlatives that you would be able to point to something more than it being a logical conclusion. Do you have something more than a non-existent being meets a list of human superlatives so that must be what caused the universe? It doesn't sound very convinving to me. If we start considering any religious texts your case doesn't improve. But I don't recall you mentioning anything along these lines. What your theory seems to be based on appears to be no more logically feasible than an uncaused spontaneous event creating the universe.

 

[blastula]

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.

That is playing games. You use BGV as part of your argument for God, because you think a beginning helps prove God. But it doesn't help because, 1) BGV doesn't prove a beginning (as you admit) or even tip evidence in its favor (which you don't admit), and 2) even if there is a beginning, God is still unnecessary.

Even the G of BGV doesn't believe a beginning is more likely. And here's this from the Christian cosmologist Don Page.

In view of these beliefs of mine, I am not convinced that most philosophical arguments for the existence of God are very persuasive. In particular, I am highly skeptical of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I shall quote here from one of your slides, Bill:

1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

I do not believe that the first premise is metaphysically necessary, and I am also not at all sure that our universe had a beginning. (I do believe that the first premise is true in the actual world, since I do believe that God exists as a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence, but I do not see that this premise is true in all logically possible worlds.)

I agree with you, Sean, that we learn our ideas of causation from the lawfulness of nature and from the directionality of the second law of thermodynamics that lead to the commonsense view that causes precede their effects (or occur at the same time, if Bill insists). But then we have learned that the laws of physics are CPT invariant (essentially the same in each direction of time), so in a fundamental sense the future determines the past just as much as the past determines the future. I agree that just from our experience of the one-way causation we observe within the universe, which is just a merely effective description and not fundamental, we cannot logically derive the conclusion that the entire universe has a cause, since the effective unidirectional causation we commonly experience is something just within the universe and need not be extrapolated to a putative cause for the universe as a whole.

I had the wrong link there, should be Guest Post: Don Page on God and Cosmology | Sean Carroll

Also, wanted to add this part.

On the issue of whether our universe had a beginning, besides not believing that this is at all relevant to the issue of whether or not God exists, I agreed almost entirely with Sean’s points rather than yours, Bill, on this issue. We simply do not know whether or not our universe had a beginning, but there are certainly models, such as Sean’s with Jennifer Chen (hep-th/0410270 and gr-qc/0505037), that do not have a beginning. I myself have also favored a bounce model in which there is something like a quantum superposition of semiclassical spacetimes (though I don’t really think quantum theory gives probabilities for histories, just for sentient experiences), in most of which the universe contracts from past infinite time and then has a bounce to expand forever. In as much as these spacetimes are approximately classical throughout, there is a time in each that goes from minus infinity to plus infinity.

 

[remez]

Blastula

Just to be clear

I do not claim that the BGV absolutely proves the universe had a beginning.
I don't claim that the BGV proves God exists.

I do assert that the BGV does indeed infer that the universe began to exist.
(I provided evidence of that assertion earlier.)

Further I assert that the BGV supports premise 2 of the KCA.

Now I'm not following your logic here...............

That is playing games. You use BGV as part of your argument for God, because you think a beginning helps prove God. But it doesn't help because, 1) BGV doesn't prove a beginning (as you admit) or even tip evidence in its favor (which you don't admit), and 2) even if there is a beginning, God is still unnecessary.

parsed......

……You use BGV as part of your argument for God, because you think a beginning helps prove God.

If you mean that I assert that the BGV supports premise 2 of the KCA that concludes God exists, then YES.

…… But it doesn't help because, 1) BGV doesn't ........... even tip evidence in its favor (which you don't admit)........

Provide your reasoning for this assertion. As it stands it just your opinion. For I do assert precisely that and provided evidence for my position.

……You use BGV as part of your argument for God, because you think a beginning helps prove God. But it doesn't help because,......... 2) even if there is a beginning, God is still unnecessary.

You just said there that the BGV doesn't help me even if there was a beginning. That doesn't make sense. I was only using the BGV to infer the universe began to exist.

Contextually here, the necessity of God is a non sequitur.

Even the G of BGV doesn't believe a beginning is more likely.

I'm not concerned with what he believes, unless he can put some evidence behind it. I'm only concerned with what his theorem most plausibly infers.

Einstein didn't like the notion that the universe was expanding either, but that didn't change the fact that it was. So what’s your point here?


Now concerning Don Page. I'm not sure what your point is here. If it is only that you found a theist that disagrees with theological arguments working with a tensed cosmological models, then what does that do for your position?
Because….
I could turn the Page back at you and claim I found a cosmologist that asserts God exists. See, neither of us really get anywhere.

So how are you asserting Page helps your position and/or hurts mine?
And….
Another really critical issue here…..the first 7 words at he top of the Page quote are the most important.

In view of these beliefs of mine, I am not convinced that most philosophical arguments for the existence of God are very persuasive.

All that follows is premised on those first seven words. Contextually, just what are his beliefs?

Answer that and you see why Don Page concerns me little.

 

[remez]

Anything but simple. Logical impossibilities may well not exist in reality.

Then your effort to prove God not all powerful fails.

A being that exists outside of logic and reality but to "whom" logical rules need to be - perhaps sometimes selectively to give the believer wriggle room - applied? That sounds like quite a stretch to me.

I’m in no way claiming God exists outside of logic or reality.

First reality…..
I certainly assert that the universe is a subset of a larger reality. That’s what we mean by God created the universe. The universe is a creation not all of reality. I’m not trying to convince you pantheism or atheism.

Your epistemology asserts that the universe is all of reality. We differ on that for sure and each is trying to make the case for ultimate reality. So far you are just assuming yours by default.


Now…..logic
I asked you earlier if logic/reasoning was material or immaterial. You could not answer. I assert the laws of logic flow from the nature of God, similar to objective moral values and duties in the moral argument. So God does not exist outside of logic he is the logos. I’m not all that sure you know what you’re actually arguing against. You think we just make this stuff all up. That is not the case, theism is well reasoned and you should attempt to understand it if you are going to oppose it. So far you haven’t been opposing actual theism. You been opposing some version that you made up.

Can you pinpoint the exact point at which you depart from science and utilise just reason?

I don’t depart from science. Reason reaches further than science, but does not have to depart from science. Science is a subset of reason. So the real question is how far does science reach? Have at it.

I do not see how you can argue that the entirety of your approach is scientific.

I don’t.

I would never claim that science proves God. Science is limited to nature, and God transcends nature. I use science to support premises in an argument (steps of reason) that concludes God exists. I use arguments to build a case for God’s existence.

Also these characteristics: they seem to be appeals. "It must be the case because look at what it possesses."

There are not appeals. They are just part of the argument you have yet to address. Each would be supported by science (if possible) and reason. I presented a larger piece of the argument only to combat your notion that God is assumed and not reasoned.

How can a non-existent being be both immaterial and all powerful? (assuming you meant to say all powerful).

He can’t.
But I’m not claiming he is non-existent.

You would think that with this wishlist of superlatives that you would be able to point to something more than it being a logical conclusion.

Again. You have it backwards. This analytical list of characteristics is a description of the CAUSE of this universe. Determined by forensics and reason. To determine the cause of any past event you would use forensics and reason to determine the list of characteristics of the cause. Just like a crime scene investigation.

Do you have something more than a non-existent being meets a list of human superlatives so that must be what caused the universe?

Your question is senseless to me. I’m not trying to prove the existence of a non-existent being.

If we start considering any religious texts your case doesn't improve.

The context of this thread is the Biblical God. However, the only place for the Bible in the argument is the description of God only. If you're going to deny that then this thread had no point to make.

What your theory seems to be based on appears to be no more logically feasible than an uncaused spontaneous event creating the universe.

Make your case. At least I provided an argument supported by science. You’ve provide nothing more the speculation. Where is your science and reasoning for that position? Convince me. Seriously take your best shot. I’m ready.

 

[remez]

OK, now apply the part you bolded to: "our purpose in life is to know God and make him known". In particular, how do you test if the proposition "our purpose in life is to know God and make him known" holds true?

As for empiricism, one thing at a time. We'll discuss it when appropriate.

It's appropriate NOW.
I have been pressed by you on many points and have responded. Now it’s your turn. You’ve evaded this for some time now. …….

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.

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?

….Stop evading.
Be Fair.

 

[repoman]

Funnily enough, I just watched Clash of the Titans and Wrath of the Titans last week. Part of the plot was that man was losing faith/belief in the old gods and therefore these gods were dying/weakening because of it.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Then your effort to prove God not all powerful fails.



I’m in no way claiming God exists outside of logic or reality.

First reality…..
I certainly assert that the universe is a subset of a larger reality. That’s what we mean by God created the universe. The universe is a creation not all of reality. I’m not trying to convince you pantheism or atheism.

Your epistemology asserts that the universe is all of reality. We differ on that for sure and each is trying to make the case for ultimate reality. So far you are just assuming yours by default.


Now…..logic
I asked you earlier if logic/reasoning was material or immaterial. You could not answer. I assert the laws of logic flow from the nature of God, similar to objective moral values and duties in the moral argument. So God does not exist outside of logic he is the logos. I’m not all that sure you know what you’re actually arguing against. You think we just make this stuff all up. That is not the case, theism is well reasoned and you should attempt to understand it if you are going to oppose it. So far you haven’t been opposing actual theism. You been opposing some version that you made up.

Can you pinpoint the exact point at which you depart from science and utilise just reason?

I don’t depart from science. Reason reaches further than science, but does not have to depart from science. Science is a subset of reason. So the real question is how far does science reach? Have at it.

I do not see how you can argue that the entirety of your approach is scientific.

I don’t.

I would never claim that science proves God. Science is limited to nature, and God transcends nature. I use science to support premises in an argument (steps of reason) that concludes God exists. I use arguments to build a case for God’s existence.

Also these characteristics: they seem to be appeals. "It must be the case because look at what it possesses."

There are not appeals. They are just part of the argument you have yet to address. Each would be supported by science (if possible) and reason. I presented a larger piece of the argument only to combat your notion that God is assumed and not reasoned.

How can a non-existent being be both immaterial and all powerful? (assuming you meant to say all powerful).

He can’t.
But I’m not claiming he is non-existent.

You would think that with this wishlist of superlatives that you would be able to point to something more than it being a logical conclusion.

Again. You have it backwards. This analytical list of characteristics is a description of the CAUSE of this universe. Determined by forensics and reason. To determine the cause of any past event you would use forensics and reason to determine the list of characteristics of the cause. Just like a crime scene investigation.

Do you have something more than a non-existent being meets a list of human superlatives so that must be what caused the universe?

Your question is senseless to me. I’m not trying to prove the existence of a non-existent being.

If we start considering any religious texts your case doesn't improve.

The context of this thread is the Biblical God. However, the only place for the Bible in the argument is the description of God only. If you're going to deny that then this thread had no point to make.

What your theory seems to be based on appears to be no more logically feasible than an uncaused spontaneous event creating the universe.

Make your case. At least I provided an argument supported by science. You’ve provide nothing more the speculation. Where is your science and reasoning for that position? Convince me. Seriously take your best shot. I’m ready.

You say that your god doesn't exist outside of logic or reality - then we should be able to detect it shouldn't we in some form or another?
Please point out exactly what this god is and where it is located because I can't sense it in any way.
You started out by positing an argument. It doesn't matter whether it is your argument or whether you are representing someone else's argument. In response to people saying that this god - that the argument allegedly supports the "existence" of - does not exist your response is to say "go on then, do better". That isn't the by-product of a solid argument, its attempting to push the onus on to others to prove you wrong. But you've proposed it so it behoves you to support it rather than attempting to somehow prove it to be true on the basis of the eradication of other theories. Religion loves to work in this way since it appeals to emotion but its operating on a dwindling base as more is learned about the world around us.
The understanding, the argument, the postulate should not require obfuscation or appeal in its construction.

 

[blastula]

Blastula

Just to be clear

I do not claim that the BGV absolutely proves the universe had a beginning.
I don't claim that the BGV proves God exists.

I do assert that the BGV does indeed infer that the universe began to exist.
(I provided evidence of that assertion earlier.)

Further I assert that the BGV supports premise 2 of the KCA.

Yes, it is clear, I noted all of that in the post you replied to. Yet you posted all of that as if I didn't.

…… But it doesn't help because, 1) BGV doesn't ........... even tip evidence in its favor (which you don't admit)........

Provide your reasoning for this assertion. As it stands it just your opinion. For I do assert precisely that and provided evidence for my position.

I already did support it by showing what cosmologists say about it. The people who best understand the science disagree with you.

……You use BGV as part of your argument for God, because you think a beginning helps prove God. But it doesn't help because,......... 2) even if there is a beginning, God is still unnecessary.

You just said there that the BGV doesn't help me even if there was a beginning. That doesn't make sense. I was only using the BGV to infer the universe began to exist.

Contextually here, the necessity of God is a non sequitur.

Again, with the game playing. Or do you have a reading problem? You just quoted me saying, "You use BGV as part of your argument for God, because you think a beginning helps prove God." What I said is true. You use BGV as part of your argument for god. But it doesn't help the argument, even if it means what you thinks it means, because a universe that had a beginning is perfectly plausible within science, as even the BGV paper itself discusses.

Even the G of BGV doesn't believe a beginning is more likely.

I'm not concerned with what he believes, unless he can put some evidence behind it. I'm only concerned with what his theorem most plausibly infers.

That's inconsistent of you since you have quoted Vilenkin outside the paper.

Guth understands the implications of the theorem better than you (and WLC) do. As do Carroll and Page. There is more to cosmology than BGV, which they also understand and you don't.

Einstein didn't like the notion that the universe was expanding either, but that didn't change the fact that it was. So what’s your point here?

Since Guth didn't say that he didn't like a beginning, what's your point?

Now concerning Don Page. I'm not sure what your point is here. If it is only that you found a theist that disagrees with theological arguments working with a tensed cosmological models, then what does that do for your position?
Because….
I could turn the Page back at you and claim I found a cosmologist that asserts God exists. See, neither of us really get anywhere.

If you found one, it would only matter why they asserted it. Page himself asserts there is a god, but of course not on the basis of cosmology. Again, he is cited to show what BGV means regarding whether there was a beginning. To counter you will need to find cosmologists who disagree. You haven't shown any yet (besides something ambiguous from Vilenkin). Page also explains why causation is not applicable to the universe as a whole, which is another flaw in the Kalam.

So how are you asserting Page helps your position and/or hurts mine?
And….
Another really critical issue here…..the first 7 words at he top of the Page quote are the most important.

In view of these beliefs of mine, I am not convinced that most philosophical arguments for the existence of God are very persuasive.

All that follows is premised on those first seven words. Contextually, just what are his beliefs?

Answer that and you see why Don Page concerns me little.

No, what he says about whether the universe had a beginning is based on science. Do I need to quote him again?

Sorry if Page and Guth are inconvenient to your apologetics, but you will have to do better than handwave them away.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Funnily enough, I just watched Clash of the Titans and Wrath of the Titans last week. Part of the plot was that man was losing faith/belief in the old gods and therefore these gods were dying/weakening because of it.

Well, they didn't actually lose belief in the gods, they just stopped worshipping them. It's hard to lose belief in someone who comes down from heaven and kicks your ass.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Remez.

Craig basically states the KCA as:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.


The concept of an eternal creator has been around for thousands of years. The third step, an assumption built on the previous assumption, is easy to position the god (you believe in) within. As this imaginary being is eternal it appears to avoid being subject to the same constraints that the universe has been placed in, the submission/inclusion of the universe itself somehow only there to demonstrate that the creative force exists, like a product in a chain.

We don't know that No.1 holds in all cases. The possibility exists that not everything that begins to exist does have a cause. We can attempt to describe what we think the universe is, label constituent parts in at attempt to understand it but does anyone actually know what it is? How much of it have we discovered? People surmise but again noone knows. There may be, for example, an event or occurence 'A' that was caused by event or occurence 'B' but 'B' was itself an uncaused, non-eternal, spontaneous event or occurence. Or 'A' could be itself an uncaused, non-eternal, spontaneous event or occurence. The "cause" could be itself.

Whatever is eternal has no cause.
Your god is eternal so did not begin to exist.
Your god has no cause.
--it still doesn't mean that your god - on the basis that it exists - brought the universe into existence even if it can be logically argued that this is what "happened".

If your god can be discussed using logic then it should, as the universe is, be subject to the same logical interrogation as everything else. Including, for example, not brushing under the carpet the question of HOW your eternally existing god brought the universe into existence. To say that it just "did" is too easy. We can, for example, simplify and suggest or propose that the creation of the universe was an uncaused spontaneous event with no prime mover at all. This can work logically.

If your god exists outside of logic then how can we discuss it using logic?

Why would this god that you believe in need to create the universe? It has to? (It has no choice?) For companionship? To satisfy its ego? If it had to create the universe, had no choice in the matter, then it isn't all powerful since it lacks the power to not do so. It can't overrule itself? If it didn't have to create the universe then why did it do it? If none of this existed we wouldn't be here to lament its non-existence so what is the point of all of it exactly? If it is so that we can experience what it is to be alive then why can't this god have come up with a solution whereby people don't die in excruciating pain? It foresaw all of this didn't it...so why did it go ahead? Why didn't it replay when it started to go wrong? A manufacturer discovering broken glass in the drinks bottles on the production line finds a solution quickly. Why didn't god? Why doesn't god? It leaves it to us to sort it? It knew that we'd muck it up yet it still went ahead. Is it a masochist? Maybe its just bad at timing and should be bringing the universe into existence in 128 million years time instead.

Who is to say that there is only one universe and only one god? Perhaps there is an infinite number of gods and universes. A religious text wouldn't necessarily mention this, especially when they are nothing more than works of the human mind and experience at points in time and space. You posit eternity, its quite simple to posit infinity. Why not? I can't prove or disprove the existence of your god, and neither can you. Neither I nor you can prove or disprove the existence of infinite gods and universes.

There may not actually be a point at which the universe began to exist because we do not know whether there has always been something or not. A single "thing" could have existed in a certain form or state eternally but then, for some reason, changed form/state. The starting point of the Big Bang is obscure and unknown. It may be that the laws of physics that exist now are completely unrecognisable at every other point. Maybe the universe is always either expanding or contracting and the laws either change or not depending on the conditions inherent. Noone knows. Noone can prove or disprove any of the possibilities. We have nothing that we know of that we can compare the universe with.

I actually like not having certainty. Other than finding it a stretch too far to believe that the god you believe in is credible. I can't say that it is impossible, just that at this point in time I regard it as unlikely. Having certainty around an area such as this I think is a bit crazy.

If there is a creator perhaps it is called 'Nm' and despises its believers. The probability of the creator - should one exist - being the god that you believe in is completely unknown.

Do you notice that I use the word may and speak of unknown probabilities? I feel that I am free from the burden of continually having to justify what amounts to nothing demonstrably greater than beliefs based on religious texts written by other human beings, ie pre-digested. I can look at any and all possibilities, many of which may be yet to be revealed. Do you know how liberating it is to say "I don't know" as opposed to "It was god"?