How does God do anything?

[atrib]

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

It's "causes of the gaps" all the way down, don't you agree? Or maybe it's "woo of the gaps." Yep, I'm going with "woo of the gaps."

Causes all the way down... yes of course. You choose woo of the gaps... nice one. I may use sci-fi, short and sweet.

You use a computer to post ignorant drivel on the internet. And you have the nerve to call the process which enables you to do that "woo of the gaps". Hmmm

 

[atrib]

Exactly. Which is why reasonable people will say "I don't know" and at most suggest their guess based on what they do know about this universe. They don't carry on about an unknowable transcendent agent outside the universe.

Yes either side of the argument needs to base it on what we do know not God or Naturalism in the gaps arguments.

If a person 300 years ago made the argument "there are cell phones" and people asked "how do they work?" and he goes "I don't know and you don't know either! so you shouldn't be insisting they don't exist!" then it'd be reasonable if everyone concludes the guy's talking out his butt.

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.

So come back when you can produce a god. Until that time you are merely speculating.

 

[Learner]

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

It's "causes of the gaps" all the way down, don't you agree? Or maybe it's "woo of the gaps." Yep, I'm going with "woo of the gaps."

Causes all the way down... yes of course. You choose woo of the gaps... nice one. I may use sci-fi , short and sweet.

Quick question, how many times have you seen those news articles about 'sci-fi come true?' Like Arthur C. Ckarke inventing satellites and waldoes?

As opposed to any woo making the front page?

I absolutely agree, with what you are alluding to. We all have little gadgets once seen in sci-fi films. Alas not all come true, or have been discovered yet. Like finding a window or portal to multi-dimensions etc..

I think woo and sci-fi are perfect opposites. An honest balance for conversation, if you will.

 

[atrib]

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

The number of times that you have successfully answered, or even attempted to answer any question I have asked you in the past is vanishingly small.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think he used the term quite adequately for his argument,

Of corse you do, but you swallow a lot of piddle-poop arguments on the basis of liking their conclusions, whether you understand them or not.

not that you need to agree with him that he was correct with his viewpoint. Which video did you see?

You offer him up in support of finding 'gaps' in scientific knowledge as a problem for the science. This is a misunderstanding of basic science. Gaps is how science works.

 

[Learner]

I think he used the term quite adequately for his argument,

Of corse you do, but you swallow a lot of piddle-poop arguments on the basis of liking their conclusions, whether you understand them or not.

not that you need to agree with him that he was correct with his viewpoint. Which video did you see?

You offer him up in support of finding 'gaps' in scientific knowledge as a problem for the science. This is a misunderstanding of basic science. Gaps is how science works.

Whether I understand them or not... yep, the normal response as usual. Could you give me some critique on the other "something of the gaps" also mentioned?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I absolutely agree, with what you are alluding to. We all have little gadgets once seen in sci-fi films. Alas not all come true, or have been discovered yet. Like finding a window or portal to multi-dimensions etc..

I think woo and sci-fi are perfect opposites. An honest balance for conversation, if you will.

If they were perfect opposites, then the number of times they prove out true would be competitive.
What i was actually alluding to is that one is way, fucking WAY out in front. Unless you're actually posting by prayer stones?

 

[Learner]

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

The number of times that you have successfully answered, or even attempted to answer any question I have asked you in the past is vanishingly small.

You only need to remind me. There are other posters I've not been able to get back to either.

Hint: I have not retired yet, with lots to do. Check out my attendance record, won't you.


The next response will be yours. I know you did ask me some questions but I will get to them before any other posts.

 

[atrib]

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.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain how the universe originated. It doesn't even say that it originated - just that there is a phase change in the way the universe behaved about 13.7bya beyond which we cannot see.

If you use general relativity to "rewind" (or predict) the universe's evolution, we come to a point of time at which the theory predicts a zero volume, lets say at t=0. But general relativity does not describe the behavior of the universe within the time interval between t=0 and t=10^(-32 seconds). So it would foolish to claim that the universe occupied zero volume at t=0 - we don't know anything about the universe at this time. We hypothesize that quantum phenomena dominated the universe's behavior at this time, but we don't yet have a theory to describe such phenomena.

Incidentally, if you use general relativity to predict the behavior of a black hole, it also predicts a zero volume for a black hole. But we know that black holes occupy finite space and are not infinitely dense. We know because we have measurements (look up Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy). This is a shortcoming of our current understanding, and it doesn't mean or even imply that the universe originated from a zero volume space (i.e. ex nihilo).

 

[atrib]

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

The number of times that you have successfully answered, or even attempted to answer any question I have asked you in the past is vanishingly small.

You only need to remind me. There are other posters I've not been able to get back to either.

Hint: I have not retired yet, with lots to do. Check out my attendance record, won't you.

You always bail out when faced with tough questions that you cannot answer. Like:
1. What are the flaws of the BB theory? - remember that one? I do
2. How do you know god exists?
3. How do you know the Bible stories are true?
4. How do you know Jesus was a true prophet?

And so on.

 

[atrib]

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.

He has asserted that Goddidit is an answer. Without providing any evidence to support this assertion. Claims made without supporting evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[atrib]

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.

What you believe is immaterial. What you can demonstrate with facts and reason is the only thing that matters.

Not because of what we don't know and can't observe but based on what we do know and observe.

Not in any way that you can articulate, much less support.

 

[Learner]

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.

He has asserted that Goddidit is an answer. Without providing any evidence to support this assertion. Claims made without supporting evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But you have to tell us what was said, or give us an example of the transcript. If I may use Tigers post why:

Do you have any figures regarding the amount/type of matter & energy (and time if) required for us to see the emergence of this sentience? I have considered that sentience is an emergent property of matter and energy. Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it. Do you have a link to a study or experiment?

In this case the video.

 

[atrib]

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?

We don't know how the universe originated. We don't know what forces may have been involved. But that doesn't mean we should believe Goddidit. And, for everything we know about how our reality works with any degree of confidence, the answer has NEVER BEEN GODDIDIT. Not fucking once. Goddidit has a dismal record of explaining anything about our universe.

 

[atrib]

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.

He has asserted that Goddidit is an answer. Without providing any evidence to support this assertion. Claims made without supporting evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But you have to tell us what was said, or give us an example of the transcript. If I may use Tigers post why:

Do you have any figures regarding the amount/type of matter & energy (and time if) required for us to see the emergence of this sentience? I have considered that sentience is an emergent property of matter and energy. Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it. Do you have a link to a study or experiment? ( in this case the video)

How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit? Go on, I'm waiting. Another question you will not answer in any meaningful way.

And, you need to learn the fuck about logical fallacies. Your ignorance, and your continued refusal to understand how arguments from ignorance work was mildly amusing in the beginning, but it has overstayed its welcome. If you don't understand what the fuck people are talking about, maybe its time to shut the fuck up. Or do your fucking homework.

 

[atrib]

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?

I don't claim to know God exists. I do believe the universe was intentionally caused by transcendent agents. Its a belief claim not a knowledge claim.

I believe the universe was farted into existence from the flatulence of Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad. Like you, I have no evidence to support this belief. Where do we go from here? Is it a "draw" - Bantu versus God?

 

[atrib]

I call this issue a draw.

How? What points did you score?

It's like an algebraic equation. If both sides of the argument have the same weaknesses we can cross them out of the equation.

No, we can't.

I don't know how a Creator would cause the universe you don't know how unintended forces unintentionally caused the universe that supports life.

That doesn't mean that the Creator God hypothesis has any merit.

 

[atrib]

I call this issue a draw.

How? What points did you score?

It's like an algebraic equation. If both sides of the argument have the same weaknesses we can cross them out of the equation.

Please list an example of Naturalism of The Gaps, then. I susprct iy's another term you do not understand, but use.
Which means your 'side' has greater weakness than the other.

The classic example is multiverse theory. Its not only naturalism in the gaps its endless time and chance in the gaps as well.

Its a prediction of a model, some aspects of which are supported by observation and experiment. Unlike Goddidit.

 

[atrib]

You keep wanting atheists to be "in the same boat" with you regarding not knowing why existence exists so that just any belief goes.

No not any belief goes. Only one of two beliefs is true, we owe our existence to forces that unintentionally caused a universe to exist with properties that would allow life to exist. Or the universe was intentionally created and caused to exist with the properties for life to exist.

Its seems to me if either one is true the other is false.

Not knowing cannot justify a belief. It can only justify a withholding of belief.

I'm withholding belief in naturalism.

Despite posting on the internet using technology that is the product of naturalistic thinking. You may have missed the irony, so I thought I would point it out.

Can you name one thing we know with any degree of confidence that is not a product of naturalistic thinking?

 

[atrib]

Because the theists can just invoke 'goddidit' and 'it's a mystery' and are done.

Atheists and naturalists invoke 'Naturedidit' and are done

Not the educated ones.