How does God do anything?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

And my irony meter had a meltdown. Poor thing could only take so much.

 

[Learner]

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.

What ever the difference it seems you are seeing, I won't find it an issue discussing otherwise, even going along the perspective lines similar to Drew.

 

[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.

What ever the difference it seems you are seeing, I won't find it an issue discussing otherwise, even going along the perspective lines similar to Drew.

You cannot see a difference?
The difference is the game of keep-away. Refuse to engage in discussion based on a claim that the divine cannot be known. In other arguments, insist the answer is knowable, known, and in the speaker's possession.

...and pretending every question you cannot answer was posed as a gotcha, sometimes.

 

[Learner]

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.

What ever the difference it seems you are seeing, I won't find it an issue discussing otherwise, even going along the perspective lines similar to Drew.

You cannot see a difference?
The difference is the game of keep-away. Refuse to engage in discussion based on a claim that the divine cannot be known. In other arguments, insist the answer is knowable, known, and in the speaker's possession.

...and pretending every question you cannot answer was posed as a gotcha, sometimes.

Diifference? Well not in the way as you think I'm dong, in those "thoughts of intention."

I don't "refuse" to engage at all, either. Otherwise I could ask you to prove or demonstrate it, I'll leave it to you. It's in your mind Keith.

 

[Drew2008]

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.

It is the prevailing theory of how the universe came into existence.

| EarthSky

In the view of modern cosmologists, the Big Bang is the event that marked the birth of our universe.

earthsky.org

You’ve probably heard of the Big Bang as the event that gave rise to our universe. You might know most cosmologists believe it occurred some 13.8 billion years ago. It’s hard to fathom that, at the moment of the Big Bang, all of the energy in the universe – some of which would later become galaxies, stars, planets and human beings – was concentrated into a tiny point, smaller than the nucleus of an atom. And it’s not just matter that was born in the Big Bang. In the view of modern cosmologists, matter and space and time all began when that microscopic point suddenly expanded violently and exponentially.

The Big Bang refers to a theory. How could it be otherwise? The current version of Big Bang theory – the one used most by modern cosmologists – is called the Lambda-CDM model. It postulates that our universe began at a specific instant, expanded to be flat (i.e. has zero curvature) and is made up of 5% baryons (i.e. the matter that makes up everything we see – galaxies, stars, planets, people), 27% cold dark matter (hence the “CDM” of the theory’s name) and 68% dark energy.

The Lambda-CDM model further states that the universe is expanding at a rate referred to as Lambda (the Greek letter) and is governed by the principles of Einstein’s General Relativity. The Lambda-CDM model has been spectacularly successful at explaining what we observe in the universe. It makes predictions repeatedly confirmed by observation. But it is not without problems; as with all scientific theories, the Lambda-CDM model continues to evolve.

The reason this theory along with inflation has gained currency is because there is evidence to support it and it explains things we observe now. The hallmark of a good theory.

 

[Rhea]

Now I love EarthSky.org, they are a great and enthusiastic site.

Take care to note that their target audience is laypeople. They don’t try to convey math, and they don’t try to be ultra precise with their explanations.

Case in point; the use of the term “our universe.” It’s fairly accurate to say that post big bang is “our universe,” as we see it and as we can detect it. But they are not trying to clarify anything about how the singularity was also a “universe,” or even more accurately “a universe,” nor whether all of the energy and matter that makes up “our universe” or the singularity that gave rise to it, or the potential previous universe that could have collapsed into the singularity, an also exist. They are providing information about one timeframe.

Now, you may say that our universe is the only one. In which case you make it clear that the answers are already given in this thread on what mechanisms could be responsible for it, right? The singularity was the source. If you want to go back further, you’ll need something more in depth than earthsky.org. Other source do exist, plenty of them. And we’ve been putting those thoughts right here for you.

But here’s the point. This discussion, about how things interact, has had all kinds of input from the non-god side. We’ve provided opinions, in good faith, of how the interactions could have happened.

You… haven’t.

Two of you have claimed “how could we possibly know that??”
To which the rest of us must likely wonder, “all righty then, how indeed can you claim to know anything at all about your god at any level, including whether it exists?” (Not to mention your claims about what it wants and whether it’s having you over for dinner after you die)

So fine. We’ve got your answer.

Sonny said, “I’ve never had a good answer [to that question from a theist]”
And you are both saying, “and you won’t get one from us, either”
So as Kieth said, “well, ‘no good answer’ is undefeated.”

We get it. We hear you loud and clear. “We theists have no good answer to this question.”

You even accuse Sonny of asking it as a trick. A gotcha.
Which is, like, the weirdest idea in the world to a scientist or engineer or mathematician or physicist.
The question is, “what do you suppose is the mechanism for this phenomena?” And honestly, not one of us could imagine going to work and refusing to try to form a hypothesis for the sake of discussion. It would be unthinkable.

Such an interesting difference in world view.

 

[Bomb#20]

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. ... 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.

It is the prevailing theory of how the universe came into existence.

| EarthSky

In the view of modern cosmologists, the Big Bang is the event that marked the birth of our universe.

earthsky.org

You’ve probably heard of the Big Bang as the event that gave rise to our universe. You might know most cosmologists believe<snip>

Why do you keep quoting journalists instead of cosmologists?

In the view of modern cosmologists, matter and space and time all began when that microscopic point suddenly expanded violently and exponentially.

Do you know what the word "point" and the word "exponentially" mean?

The size of a point is zero. Not just really really small, like a trillionth of a nanometer or something. Zero.

When some quantity increases exponentially, that means it increases with time according to the formula x_t = x₀e^t.

When x₀ is zero, what's x₀e^t?

Science journalists very often misunderstand what scientists say, and they pass on their misunderstandings to the general public. But one of the great virtues of science compared to religion is that you don't need to rely on science journalists to pass the word of science to you second hand as if they were priests passing the word of God to you second hand. With science, you can work the math for yourself. If the inflationary Big Bang model really said the universe started at one moment at one point and expanded exponentially from there, then it would predict that the size of the universe at the end of the cosmic inflationary era would still be zero. Zero times an exponential function is zero. Zero times anything is zero. So anyone with a little scientific literacy can read the link you quoted and see for himself that Andy Briggs got the theory wrong.

 

[Learner]

Now, you may say that our universe is the only one. In which case you make it clear that the answers are already given in this thread on what mechanisms could be responsible for it, right? The singularity was the source. If you want to go back further, you’ll need something more in depth than earthsky.org. Other source do exist, plenty of them. And we’ve been putting those thoughts right here for you.

I would wonder. What other sources,; as the imaginative theoretical ideas that the are, at the highest of acedemia, could ever possibly tell you what's further back before the singularity?

But here’s the point. This discussion, about how things interact, has had all kinds of input from the non-god side. We’ve provided opinions, in good faith, of how the interactions could have happened.

You… haven’t.

That's not quite right. Drew has provided his imput, even if you don't agree with it. Do you not notice the engagement between some of the posters disputing, on the subject in hand (not religion)?

Two of you have claimed “how could we possibly know that??”
To which the rest of us must likely wonder, “all righty then, how indeed can you claim to know anything at all about your god at any level, including whether it exists?” (Not to mention your claims about what it wants and whether it’s having you over for dinner after you die)

So fine. We’ve got your answer.

You heard it said, and I'm sure you've said it yourself: " religion or faith is not science. " I have have no doubt theists agree with this too.

You got an answer, good. I think we can now establish that theists do not claim we know "how" God does it, but we can make the claim that we trust (have the faith) in the writers, derived psycholocally, historically, scholarly, geologically, etc.. & etc.. whereas others have had their own personal experiences, being that there are various ways how people become believers, case by case, which is a different discussion from the current dialogue.

You even accuse Sonny of asking it as a trick. A gotcha.
Which is, like, the weirdest idea in the world to a scientist or engineer or mathematician or physicist.

Accusations ok... well it is normal on the forum. I've recieved quite a few from you in the past, but I don't take it too personal. Practice what you preach?

It probably would be a wierd idea to a scientist or engineer or mathematician, because the question is a habitual line of argument, used by a lot of atheists in a lot of debates. But fair fenough for the accusations as you say, which often happens between posters. However I'll accuse anyone I think is using it .

The question is, “what do you suppose is the mechanism for this phenomena?” And honestly, not one of us could imagine going to work and refusing to try to form a hypothesis for the sake of discussion. It would be unthinkable.

Such an interesting difference in world view.

Drew has contributed his input.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You heard it said, and I'm sure you've said it yourself: " religion or faith is not science. " I have have no doubt theists agree with this too.

Lighten up there, Dude. First Drew destroys my irony meter and now you come along and fry my bullshit meter.

 

[Rhea]

Now, you may say that our universe is the only one. In which case you make it clear that the answers are already given in this thread on what mechanisms could be responsible for it, right? The singularity was the source. If you want to go back further, you’ll need something more in depth than earthsky.org. Other source do exist, plenty of them. And we’ve been putting those thoughts right here for you.

I would wonder. What other sources,; as the imaginative theoretical ideas that the are, at the highest of acedemia, could ever possibly tell you what's further back before the singularity?

Great question. Glad you asked.

In science, especially in theoretical science, but absolutely in practical science as well, it is very common for the investigator to ask, “what could cause that,” or “what could possibly cause that?”

I do this all the time at work. I recently held a hypothesis-refuting workshop where we were struggling with a production defect. We gathered our subject matter experts and we said, “okay, we have this problem. We need to know the fundamental mechanisms so we can establish the root cause.”

• So we go around the room and we determine what facts we have on the table. What do we know already. What is the defect, when does it happen, what does it happen to, how much does it happen, is it getting worse over time?
• Then we ask, “what could possibly cause that?” And we brainstorm a list. Brainstorming means, get as many ideas as possible. Don’t judge, don’t solve, just ideate. It can be far-fetched, that’s okay, we’ll interrogate later.
• Then we say, okay, of all these ideas, what is the mechanism for how each would work?
• Then we ask, is that mechanism possible here? For example, if the defect is occuring at a rate of every half second, and the proposed mechanism can only influence at a rate of once per minute, it’s taken off the possible list and marked as unlikely. Or if the mechanism, say a magnetic field, is unable to operate on the process, say ceramic polishing, then it gets moved to “refuted.” Sometimes an experiment is needed to refute, sometimes fundamental principles can do it on the back of an envelope.
• When we’re left with only a few remaining plausible mechanisms, we can do some more experiments. Now, bear in mind, we can’t ”prove” anything at all, we can only prove what it is not. But we’ve narrowed it down to things that could affect the outcome and can demonstrate the effect on the outcome by turning it on and off (ability to predict).
• In the end, we never have a “proof,” but we have a probable cause and a solution. And usually, we can turn off the defect.

And that is how physicists could tell you what is possible beyond a singularity. They never promised to prove it to you, but they did propose things that could work, and do not have any reason to not work.

That’s what you were asked to do in this discussion. Propose some ideas on how your god could interact. Any scientist or engineer would pull out a green pad and start thinking, crossing off things that aren’t possible, seeing what’s left. A religionist has no curiosity beyond, “because he’s god,” and no concern that the implication has elements that are not possible.

 

[Rhea]

Now, you may say that our universe is the only one. In which case you make it clear that the answers are already given in this thread on what mechanisms could be responsible for it, right? The singularity was the source. If you want to go back further, you’ll need something more in depth than earthsky.org. Other source do exist, plenty of them. And we’ve been putting those thoughts right here for you.

I would wonder. What other sources,; as the imaginative theoretical ideas that the are, at the highest of acedemia, could ever possibly tell you what's further back before the singularity?

And to give you an idea of what this looks like:

What Happened Before the Big Bang?

Do we know what the universe looked like before the Big Bang?

www.livescience.com

The Big Bang is commonly thought of as the start of it all: About 13.8 billion years ago, the observable universe went boom and expanded into being.

But what were things like before the Big Bang?
Short answer: We don't know. Long answer: It could have been a lot of things, each mind-bending in its own way.

The first thing to understand is what the Big Bang actually was.

"The Big Bang is a moment in time, not a point in space," said Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology and author of "The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself" (Dutton, 2016).

Read the article. You’ll enjoy it.
Better yet, read Carroll’s book, since he’s the physicist. He writes very well.

 

[Rhea]

Now it’s your turn. Does any religionist anywhere have any hypotheses on HOW the god influences actions in the universe? And if they don’t, do they have any authority to make any statement whatsoever about the nature, actions or morals of their god?

Take you for example.
HOW do you know that your god exists? By what mechanism did this enter your head?
These are natural spinoffs of the question in the OP that asks you to make some guesses about how, exactly, your god manages to influence the world, because it includes how he, for example, told Abraham to murder his own son. How did that happen?

We do know one plausible explanation, and that is that Abraham had a delusion. There is no evidence that rules that out, and, so far, no hypothesis to compete with it.

So far, in all the world, there is no evidence anywhere of atoms or molecules or neurons being influenced by any thing at all anywhere that does not include known chemistry and physics. So if your god has some mechanism other than the relentless blind and undirected actions of physics, let’s have a conversation about that.

 

[Drew2008]

Now it’s your turn. Does any religionist anywhere have any hypotheses on HOW the god influences actions in the universe? And if they don’t, do they have any authority to make any statement whatsoever about the nature, actions or morals of their god?

Take you for example.
HOW do you know that your god exists? By what mechanism did this enter your head?
These are natural spinoffs of the question in the OP that asks you to make some guesses about how, exactly, your god manages to influence the world, because it includes how he, for example, told Abraham to murder his own son. How did that happen?

We do know one plausible explanation, and that is that Abraham had a delusion. There is no evidence that rules that out, and, so far, no hypothesis to compete with it.

So far, in all the world, there is no evidence anywhere of atoms or molecules or neurons being influenced by any thing at all anywhere that does not include known chemistry and physics. So if your god has some mechanism other than the relentless blind and undirected actions of physics, let’s have a conversation about that.

I'm not a religionist (didn't know there were such things). I don't promote or defend any religious beliefs. I'm a theist I believe our existence and the universe was intentionally caused. Not because of what we don't know and can't observe but based on what we do know and observe.

 

[Drew2008]

I call this issue a draw.

I note that this is often an attractive response to those on the losing side in any contest.

I haven't heard any alternate explanation from the it wasn't God crowd except naturalism in the gaps statements...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe hands on problem solving makes bad for theism. I also worked in a manufacturing environment where observations, data, problem solving skills and methodology were absolutely critical. You could pray and worship all day and it wouldn't solve squat.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not a religionist (didn't know there were such things). I don't promote or defend any religious beliefs. I'm a theist I believe our existence and the universe was intentionally caused. Not because of what we don't know and can't observe but based on what we do know and observe.

Except that you can't observe the great intender. You can't observe it, measure it, smell it, quantify it, predict what it will do, experiment with it, hear it, feel it, see it, you can't do anything with it. Unless of course you and the great intender are one and the same.

 

[Rhea]

Now it’s your turn. Does any religionist anywhere have any hypotheses on HOW the god influences actions in the universe? And if they don’t, do they have any authority to make any statement whatsoever about the nature, actions or morals of their god?

Take you for example.
HOW do you know that your god exists? By what mechanism did this enter your head?
These are natural spinoffs of the question in the OP that asks you to make some guesses about how, exactly, your god manages to influence the world, because it includes how he, for example, told Abraham to murder his own son. How did that happen?

We do know one plausible explanation, and that is that Abraham had a delusion. There is no evidence that rules that out, and, so far, no hypothesis to compete with it.

So far, in all the world, there is no evidence anywhere of atoms or molecules or neurons being influenced by any thing at all anywhere that does not include known chemistry and physics. So if your god has some mechanism other than the relentless blind and undirected actions of physics, let’s have a conversation about that.

I'm not a religionist (didn't know there were such things). I don't promote or defend any religious beliefs. I'm a theist I believe our existence and the universe was intentionally caused. Not because of what we don't know and can't observe but based on what we do know and observe.

Great. What do you know (and how do you know it) and what do you observe on the topic of “how does god interact with the universe.”

Take you for example.
HOW do you know that your god exists? By what mechanism did this enter your head?

 

[Rhea]

I call this issue a draw.

I note that this is often an attractive response to those on the losing side in any contest.

I haven't heard any alternate explanation from the it wasn't God crowd except naturalism in the gaps statements...

What?

You have heard explicit and detailed mechanisms.

 

[Drew2008]

I'm not a religionist (didn't know there were such things). I don't promote or defend any religious beliefs. I'm a theist I believe our existence and the universe was intentionally caused. Not because of what we don't know and can't observe but based on what we do know and observe.

Except that you can't observe the great intender. You can't observe it, measure it, smell it, quantify it, predict what it will do, experiment with it, hear it, feel it, see it, you can't do anything with it. Unless of course you and the great intender are one and the same.

You can't observe, taste, feel, touch or explain the alleged natural forces that caused nature to exist but that doesn't stop you from believing they caused the universe and life to exist...true?

 

[steve_bank]

I don't have any idea. Do you know how non-God or mindless forces caused the universe to exist? Can you explain why such forces would cause life to exist? Does your lack of knowledge how such came about deter you from believing it came about accidentally? If you respond that's just how nature did it your response is just as vacuous.

What are these non-god, mindless forces you are talking about? What are god forces?

The answer God is a possible explanation to the question why a universe that allowed life came to exist. Atheists typically claim it wasn't God because God doesn't exist (classic circular reasoning) or more often than not they attribute it to naturalistic causes that unintentionally caused the universe, the laws of physics, stars, space and time and life to exist. The OP post asked by what mechanism did God cause the universe to exist as if not knowing that invalidates the claim. There are many things scientists and engineers accomplish and cause to exist and I have no idea how they do it. That doesn't invalidate my belief they created such things intelligently. I suspect no one here has any idea how natural forces caused natural forces to come into existence or why they would cause laws of physics humans depend on.

Down a well tordden path here abuts.

Sure the biblical god is an expatiation, but so is the spirit imagined by Native Americans.

Some of us atheists flatly say bible god does not exist, some might say like myself there is no proof beyond personal feelings and an ancient set of disjointed texts, IOW the OT. So to me until it goes beyond feelings and subjective perceptions there is no evidence.

It can not be objectively proven or disproven. Which is why religion is called faith not science. I question the faith of believers who seem to have a need to prove god to us atheists not for our benefit but for themselves to shore up faith.

What we can do is take apart what is offered as proof of god, like claiming god exists becasue god is refernced in the bible. Or YEC.

For me there is no question of creation, the universe has always existed and always will, which I can support based on science although that too is not proven.

The questions of ultimate origins are not provable scientifically, religiously, or philosophically. Which is why religion thrives, no way to disprove it.

If you want to believe a god winked it into existence and that improves the emotional quality of your life, good for you. Same for Hindus, Zoroastrians, Native Americans, Sikhs , Jews, Muslims and all the rest. I would however draw the line at sacrificial virgins to appease a volcano god. Jesus sacrificial lamb as metaphor is fine.

At this point after all te time on he forum it is hard to take any of this seriously.