How does God do anything?

[Rhea]

The fact that every single phenomenon that has ever been subjected to scientific scrutiny has either been found to be of either natural or unknown causes,

We label anything that we observe to occur as natural. There is no other condition. If all people were able to briefly levitate off the floor for a few feet and land again even if there was no explanation for the ability it would of course be labeled natural. What would be deemed supernatural event years ago is just technology today.

What? No. You just contradicted yourself. If it were deemed supernatural years ago, as it was observed, you just said that would make it natural by being observed.

gives us no reason to suspect that a debate over of natural vs. unnatural or supernatural causes of the origin of the universe, can yield any useful insights, observations or means of determining the actual origin of the universe.

I agree it should be delineated as intentional designed cause of the universe over a unguided, unintentional cause of the universe and subsequently life.

You are not in agreement.

The only reason I can imagine for a theist to try to force the fact that we do not fully understand the origin of the universe into their theology, is to convince him/herself that there could be - no matter how unlikely - an entity resembling their concept of their religion's god, that might be responsible for "creating" (by means that remain just as unknown as they were before the debate) the universe. This is oft referred to as mental masturbation.

This thread started with someone trying to force theists to explain how God can make things happen or cause a universe to exist.

No. The thread started with an INVITATION for a theist to offer any insight into how they explain how things work.

You have stated that you have no interest in examining that, you are satisfied with “goddidit,” and disdain the discussion.

”trying to force” ??

What is the actual mechanism by which God can affect the natural world? How did he create the universe?

I pointed out that neither side of the naturalism vs intentional design debate knows how the universe came to be.

You demonstrated that non-theists were willing to explore it and you were not.
You have not once engaged in any way with the invitaion in the OP.
You have, however, mischaracterized what scientists say and ignored the answers you have been given only to repeat your obviously false claim that rationaists, “don’t know either.”


The OP did not ask you to ”know,” it asked you to describe your thoughts. It said,

. “Because he’s god“ doesn’t count.

And you came in and said, “Because he’s god.“

If it morphed into a universe from a singularity we don't know what caused that event or what caused the singularity. We don't know how things operate outside of the laws of physics we are familiar with.

But the is a lot of interesting in examining it, and pplying what we *do* know to this moment. By non-theists, that is.

I call this issue a draw.

It is not a draw.

The non-god crowd had proposed many mechanisms and answers to both the singularity issue and also any other interactions with nature. You have refused to interact in any way about how your god might TODAY interact with the universe, and you have similarly been achingly incurious about how your god could have interacted in the past.

Does it send out a special kind of boson from it’s mind to interact with the atoms? An energy wave? Electromagnetism? Unicorns? You’ve offered nothing to the central question of the discussion. Only a repeated pretense that others have not provided answers.

Its also a dumb argument. How would a mere mortal created inside this universe be privy to how a transcendent agent caused the universe to exist?

Indeed. What a great question to ask yourself. How could a mere mortal inside this universe be privy enough to the transcendant agent to have named it, described it, worshipped it and expected promises and gifts from it?

It’s almost laughable that a person could make such an outlandish claim, isn’t it?
Is religion “dumb,” then? Your argument suggests that it is.

That would be like asking someone 300 years ago how does a cell phone work? Of course they wouldn't know. Does that mean there belief it was created intentionally is false? Does that mean cell phones are created by chance?

Aaah, but an inquisitive person 300 years ago, or 600 years ago like, say Leonardo DaVinci, would ask questions, would assign what he does know and see if it applies or violates what he knows, he would speculate and then test his speculations. He would not stick his thumb up his ass and say, “goddidit.” He would compare what he sees with what he knows and see if it works as an extension. Don’t you realize this is how humanity advances?

Don’t you realize that Every. Single. Thing. We know. Is a result of people applying what we do know, seeing if the principles decribe it well, and disarding things that are refuted by the evidence?

Whereas religion - has been stagnant. Utterly, pathetically, stagnant. Religion knows nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sonny: I’ve never heard a good answer to the question
Learner: Plays keep-away, explaining why he plays keep-away.
w
So, 'no good answer' is undefeated

 

[Bomb#20]

So you are saying that god forces are not natural things? What exactly are things that are not natural? I'm not aware of any. ...

The natural vs not natural distinction is bogus. Anything that happens no matter how bizarre or unexpected if its observed, and it happens is natural. If it turns out we owe our existence to a transcendent being that would be natural too. What would be unnatural about it? If it turns out we owe our existence to a scientist from another universe what would be unnatural about that? We have no say so in what is or isn't natural.

Bingo.

"Supernatural" is a genre of fiction, not a category of possible beings or possible phenomena.

I don't care for the word immaterial because it implies its less than this material world we exist in. If this universe was caused and designed to exist it was by a more real source than this material world which is artificial.

"More real" how? How do you figure realness is a matter of degree? Things are real or they're make-believe. You might as well claim a computer is "more real" than the program it's running, or that when you got checkmated by your brother your defeat was "more real" than when a computer chess program checkmated you. It's nonsense. Reality includes everything.

Transcendent is the best word. Like for instance the scientists, engineers and IT people who created a simulated universe are transcendent to it.

That's an excellent way to think about it. Kudos! Note, though, that this makes "transcendent" a relationship, rather than a property.

If a thing you call "God" created the part of reality you call "the universe", that doesn't make God "a transcendent Being". Calling Him that would be no different from calling God "a westerly Being" without saying what He's to the west of. All you can logically say is He transcends us. This carries no implications about omni properties, or being all there is, or being unlimited, or supreme. He may well exist in a meta-universe that has its own laws that He's just as bound to as we are to the laws of our world. He may even have been created by a team of meta-meta engineers who created a simulated meta-universe containing your God, and those engineers are transcendent to your God just as He is transcendent to us.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with a so-called "God" who's conceptually indistinguishable from a common engineer. He's no more transcendent than some hacker at CERN, and no less natural. So this raises the question, why are you calling Him "God"? What does the word "God" mean? What is the criterion for it? What properties -- properties, not relationships -- does your word "God" ascribe to an entity you apply it to? Would you call the CERN hacker who wrote the code for the simulated universe "God"? No? Then transcendence is not a qualification for godhood.

Operationally, what distinguishes things called "gods" from things not called "gods" is that people worship the things they call gods, and they claim others ought to worship them too, and they claim that those things appreciate the worship. So the reasonable qualification for being one of them is a "god" is anyone who wants to be worshipped and deserves to be. You're postulating that an intelligent Being became transcendent to us by creating the part of reality that contains us. For the sake of discussion let's suppose you're right about that. Do you have a reason to think this Being wants to be worshipped and deserves to be?

I put it to you that worship is immoral. Therefore anyone who wants to be worshipped does not deserve to be. Therefore there is no such thing as a God.

 

[Learner]

Sonny: I’ve never heard a good answer to the question
Learner: Plays keep-away, explaining why he plays keep-away.
w
So, 'no good answer' is undefeated

No Keith, its no more falling for that answer trick! No more points for that old "argument."

 

[Rhea]

Then just don’t post. Why come on a thread and say, “I won’t answer the thread’s question, just want you all to know that.”

 

[Learner]

Rhea... I always try to answer questions when I can. Stop trying portray me falsely.

 

[Rhea]

What is the actual mechanism by which God can affect the natural world? How did he create the universe? Does he just think stuff and then it happens? How can he read the minds of seven billion people at once? I’ve never heard a good answer to the question. “Because he’s god“ doesn’t count.

This God would certainly not be human, as we understand ourselves, as mere limited mortals.. What would one "logically" expect and comprehend as an answer - as if one should know everything, so to speak? Requiring, I would guess, a capacity far exeeding the mere size of our craniums etc..

I’ll react to you the same way I react to Drew when he laments, “how can we know anything about such a great being!?!

Its also a dumb argument. How would a mere mortal created inside this universe be privy to how a transcendent agent caused the universe to exist?

Indeed. What a great question to ask yourself. How could a mere mortal inside this universe be privy enough to the transcendant agent to have named it, described it, worshipped it and expected promises and gifts from it?

It’s almost laughable that a person could make such an outlandish claim, isn’t it?
Is religion “dumb,” then? Your argument suggests that it is.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea... I always try to answer questions when I can. Stop trying portray me falsely.

It looks like it was pretty accurate. You came on this thread to proclaim that you can’t answer the question.

Try. Speculate. Imagine. Hypothesize. That’s what the OP asks.


Through what mechanism does your god communicate to you? Through what mechanism does it heal sickness? Through what mechanism does it rapture? Magnetism? Gravity?

Remember,

“Because he’s god“ doesn’t count.

 

[Learner]

So you didn't understand what I was getting at., which is an adequate anwser to the question from my personal opinion to the OP. Have a look at the other posts opinions of believers regarding the OP. No harm done.

 

[Rhea]

So you didn't understand what I was getting at., which is an adequate anwser to the question from my personal opinion to the OP. Have a look at the other posts opinions of believers regarding the OP. No harm done I would think.

You answered, “Because he’s god.”

 

[Learner]

So you didn't understand what I was getting at., which is an adequate anwser to the question from my personal opinion to the OP. Have a look at the other posts opinions of believers regarding the OP. No harm done I would think.

You answered, “Because he’s god.”

Well yes, in that sense, as a believer. But I didn't becomer one by discovering the actual method of creation of course.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why do you assume naturalistic forces did not exist yet?
Why do you assume the universe started to exist?

Its not an assumption the scientific consensus is that the universe came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago. There appears to be a lot of data and facts that support that conclusion.

No. It's not a scientific consensus and there are no facts and data supporting that conclusion. There can't be since it's not a scientific claim. You misunderstand the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory asserts that the universe was caused to be the way it is by forces of nature acting on an earlier state of the universe that was hotter and denser. It is a theory of transformation, not a theory of beginning, the same way the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the origin of species, not a theory of the origin of life. Darwin explained how previously existing life transformed into the life we see today; Lemaitre et al. explained how previously existing matter and energy transformed into the matter and energy we see today. When you say the data and facts support a consensus about the beginning of the universe, you're making exactly the same error as the creationists who say evolution is the atheist theory of abiogenesis.

 

[Learner]

Rhea... I always try to answer questions when I can. Stop trying portray me falsely.

It looks like it was pretty accurate. You came on this thread to proclaim that you can’t answer the question.

Nice try, but love the phrasing, as you put it, “I won’t answer the thread’s question, just want you all to know that.”

I suppose, to be fair, I just wanted to let you know, I do NOT claim to know, (being a theist).

 

[Bomb#20]

No, Drew. According to most scientists the universe went through a moment that changed everything. What went on before that moment does not equal a creation.

No you're mistaken. The claim is the universe came into existence from a singularity.


Posted on February 16, 2011 by Matt Williams

From your link:

"AUTHOR: MATT WILLIAMS
Matt Williams is the Curator of Universe Today's Guide to Space. He is also a freelance writer, a science fiction author and a Taekwon-Do instructor. He lives with his family on Vancouver Island in beautiful British Columbia."

What Is A Singularity?​

Ever since scientists first discovered the existence of black holes in our universe, we have all wondered: what could possibly exist beyond the veil of that terrible void? In addition, ever since the theory of General Relativity was first proposed, scientists have been forced to wonder, what could have existed before the birth of the Universe – i.e. before the Big Bang?

Interestingly enough, these two questions have come to be resolved (after a fashion) with the theoretical existence of something known as a Gravitational Singularity – a point in space-time where the laws of physics as we know them break down.

What this journalist wrote is unscientific nonsense. If we suppose there was a gravitational singularity before the phenomena the Big Bang Theory describes, that in no way resolves any question about the birth of the universe, because we have no physical theory that describes how a gravitational singularity can turn into a state of finite temperature and density. Extrapolating from one finite number to another to another, and then suddenly saying "to infinity and beyond", is speculation, not science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I meant if we (in a hypothetical) brought someone forward a 300 years in time and showed them a cell phone, it would be pure magic how it worked. But they wouldn't guess it was caused unintentionally by natural forces.

You must think that everyone thinks just like you think. You must see other people as a projection of yourself because you are constantly saying what other people do and would do, casting about these great generalizations. The Phaistos Disc had moveable type. Whoever invented that could have been brought thousands of years forward and run a Gutenberg press. They wouldn't have claimed magic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sonny: I’ve never heard a good answer to the question
Learner: Plays keep-away, explaining why he plays keep-away.
w
So, 'no good answer' is undefeated

No Keith, its no more falling for that answer trick! No more points for that old "argument."

Yeah. You made your apology for not playing. You made a special post to point out you're not able to play in this arena.

 

[Learner]

Sonny: I’ve never heard a good answer to the question
Learner: Plays keep-away, explaining why he plays keep-away.
w
So, 'no good answer' is undefeated

No Keith, its no more falling for that answer trick! No more points for that old "argument."

Yeah. You made your apology for not playing. You made a special post to point out you're not able to play in this arena.

Er.. no. I can still respond to each post. The only thing I can't tell you, as I previously said, is how God actually does it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you didn't understand what I was getting at., which is an adequate anwser to the question from my personal opinion to the OP. Have a look at the other posts opinions of believers regarding the OP. No harm done.

Dude, at times you guys claim you don't, can't comprehend god.
But at other times you will insist "god doesn't do that' or 'god wouldn't do that.' This requires comprehending god.

So, cop-out noted. As usual.

 

[Learner]

You can't hold on to that " I don't know" to the question (an honest answer BTW) all the time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You can't hold on to that " I don't know" to the question (an honest answer BTW) all the time.

You can if you honestly answer a question you don't know the znswer to. Why wouldn't you?

But the difference here is jumping back and forth between "we CAN'T know" and statements that reflect knowing.