If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[skepticalbip]

This is an important point that I think Remez is not willing to accept. I cringe when I see shows on the Science channel that say something to the effect, "The universe started with a Big Bang". This stems from the show being a lay presentation of very technical scientific findings to a lay audience.

I do a lot of cringing too. But I am really torn over the 'value' of pop-sci videos and books. They do excite many curious and talented young about science and encourages them to go into the sciences rather than something like business management. The down side is that they present one-sided (and often fringe) speculation and misleading analogies as if they are scientific truths... Brian Greene and Michio Kaku are, to me, the most guilty of this. I guess I would like to see more disclaimers and explanation of how watered down the presentations are and how misleading they can be. But then the kids wouldn't find them as exciting.

 

[Wiploc]

... Gods existed (if they existed at all) at some time X, and they didn't exist before that. So therefore these gods began. By definition.

I’m thinking how could you say that? Because….I’m thinking….. Of course God existed without time. (note…I did not say God existed before time,

You did say that. Of course your gods existed before time. That has always been your claim.

because the word “before” could not apply if there was no time….

Right.

hence the perfect word sans…without) This is plain reasoning to the argument for over a thousand years. So……How can you say that?....but…then I saw where we were missing each other……

With reason…I ask you……. how does “begin” relate to “eternal.” Seriously if something is eternal does it have a beginning?

If something is eternal, it has existed for all of time, which is an infinite amount of time because time is an infinite regress. If time is not infinite and unbegun, then nothing is eternal.

That what I was wondering about and why I asked you repeatedly. This time you finally addressed it. You reason that eternity is limited to time.

It's a meaning, a definition, not a reasoning. I'm not coming to the conclusion that eternity is limited to time. I'm using the word eternity in the familiar way, so that it means the thing that I'm used to it meaning.

If you want to introduce a new meaning, I'd like you to explain it.

Here's a Thomas McCormack quote, from The Fiction Editor, which I hope you will enjoy:

Neologisms
I'm aware that they're here. I don't like them
much myself, and I apologize for them. If I
had the artistry of Freud, as writer, I'd be able
to coin new currency that had the enduring
glitter of gold. The motivation behind the effort
derives from the memory of my blurred double
vision as a student when I'd read a minor
philosopher or critic who, instead of minting
a new phrase phrase for a unique new concept,
would ask me to take a familiar word, rinse it
of all its now-instinctive connotations, and re-stain
it with an alien meaning. And sometimes he
wouldn't even warn you. He'd simply escort the
thing into the party unintroduced, and only after
half an hour did it dawn on you, Crikey, that's not
his wife after all! and you'd scramble back to see
what blunders you'd made. Familiar-looking words
inevitably are smoking thuribles trailing the incense
of former meanings, associations, and confusions.
In poetry this can be great; in argument it simply
makes the eyes water. Thus, neologisms.
Sometimes a rare new strain of flower, most of the
time a clanking prosthesis, obviously inanimate.

I just love that, "Crikey, that's not his wife after all!" But if it's not his wife, who is it? If your "eternity" isn't an endless expanse of time, what is it?

I don't have a clue.

Eternity and time are the same set for you. I, as well as the ancient argument, reason that time is a small subset of eternity.

What is the rest of eternity? Does it include bacon? Rat poison? Gods?

What is the nature of this "eternity"?

As Fezzic said in The Princess Bride, I need a hint.

Let that sink in. I mean that politely. I’m not making up anything new here. Theists and philosophers and even scientists have reasoned this through the millennia.

This is a familiar theme for you. You use it a lot: You are scholarly and I am ignorant; you have the weight of historical opinion on your side and I'm a confused neophyte; this is a meeting of whales vs minnows.

First, this usually feels like an ineffectual attempt at insult. Just so you know.

Second, that dog won't hunt.

That is what was meant by God is timeless sans the universe.

What? What is what you meant?

We agree on the meaning of begin.

Seriously??? According to our agreed definition of "begin," your gods began.

We just don’t agree with the understanding that time is a subset of eternity.

I can't agree with something I don't understand at all. As yet, your claim is unmeaningful. It is too soon for me to even try to judge it to be true or false.

So I can easily reason that everything that begins to exist has a cause…..and not be in contradiction with time beginning. Time did begin, eternity did not.

What is eternity?

Now you can of course reject the common reasoning there.

[Insert reactive insult here.]

But that would be less reasonable.

Thanks.

I’m willing to hear your case that eternity and time are one in the same.

Cases don't come into it. I'm using a word in a familiar way. I don't have a case; I have a word.

You use the same word, but your meaning is utterly mysterious.

Because if you can’t reasonably make that case,

Hey!

then your objection to p1 has been exposed as flawed and the KCA remains unaffected by your objection.

You don't have a case, or you won't explain it if you do. You keep using words with secret meanings, and implying (not "inferring") that that makes me stupid. That's no way to argue productively.

As always that is how I interpreted your reasoning from what you wrote, I’m not attempting to put words in your mouth.

We're good. Let's keep going.

 

[Rhea]

Remez uses an interesting rhetorical trick here to conflate the verb “to reason,” which is agreed upon to mean, “to use your thought process to work something out,” with “reasonable” which is generally aggeed upon to mean, “logical, sensible, consensus - and even - likely to be true.”

But those two meanings are definitely NOT synonymous, nor does one always follow from the other, as one can easily see in this example from my son, then 4:
DS: “well, I wanted to reduce the air in the balloon, and i knew if I stuck in a pin, it would pop, so I reasoned that if I warmed it up it would make the latex more flexible and I could poke it and release air wihtout popping, so I reasoned that heat would help, and that’s why I shoved the balloon under the faucet with hot water running and then went to read a book for a while.”

My son “reasoned” out how this would work, but I think we can all agree that his conclusion was not “reasonable.”


Remez uses this trick constantly to claim that his conclusion is “reasonable” because he “reasoned” his way to it.

Remez is just as wrong as the boy who put 15 gallons of hot water on the floor of the bathroom.

Rhea uses an interesting smoke and mirrors trick here to appeal to her follow atheists because they won’t see it. She charges, without direct evidence, that remez is guilty of some bogus reasoning tactic and instead provides as evidence of an example of her son to seal the deal. Remez cannot directly redress this charge because she provides no example from remez. But skep will buy it….and she can now sleep happy at night. Provided the water isn’t running.
So….
Indirectly let’s try to play this out……assuming the story is accurate…..I sincerely “reason” the DS is a brilliant thinker. Now he was incorrect but given the incredible depth of his knowledge for that age, he made a reasonable effort to reasonably test his then worthy hypothesis. And also I reason that it is reasonable to reason that he did learn from the experience. So I ask you was my reasoning regarding DS reasonable?

You should be proud.....of your son that is.

I am extraordinarily proud of my son, by the way. He is indeed brilliant. We were so impressed by the depth of his knowledge that there was not even any shouting, well, after, “Oh crap! Get the shop vac!” (That’s how I know it was 15 gallons) But he did receive a very long lecture about the reasoning he should have done about walking away from an experiment, particularly one that included running water. But we did know that he was brilliant before this moment, and we had long ago learned to ask, “tell me what you thought was going to happen” instead of demand “why did you make a mess?”

Did he learn from the experience? Now that is instructive. He did not necessarily learn all the right things, and still (at 20yo) has a significant knowledge gap in applying a Potential Problem Analysis before doing experiments. He never made that mistake again, but it did not prevent him from the sanding of the hood of his father’s car to see what color lay underneath, or juggling the compost bin indoors to see if it would stay upright while in the air, or dropping his sneaker down the stairwell at school to see if it could make it to the bottom (it didn’t, it hit a teacher on the way).

So no, indeed, it is NOT reasonable for you to conclude he learned what he needed to from this experience. You do not have enough knowledge of the subject or data to make that a reasonable conclusion.

Rhea uses an interesting smoke and mirrors trick here to appeal to her follow atheists because they won’t see it. She charges, without direct evidence, that remez is guilty of some bogus reasoning tactic

The evidence is your posts above. I do not need to repeat them, readers can follow along.

 

[Rhea]

Read it again. I never said the science absolutely proves that the universe absolutely began. I have addressed this many times. The science we have in hand now reasonably infers an absolute beginning. The term “absolute beginning” means that all space, matter and time began to exist not that it absolutely began.

Implies, goddamnit, IMPLIES.

The listener infers, the speaker implies. If you can substitute the word “Suggest” then you should use the word “imply.” If you an substitute the word “conclude,” then you should use the word “infer.”

The evidence, if it does not state it directly, IMPLIES an outcome, the report, if it does not spell it out explicitly, IMPLIES a conclusion.

The reader, iif they don’t have a factual state must INFER the answer. The listener, if they aren’t told explicitly, must INFER the intent.

You keep using this word backwards, and it is hilariously apropos to your incomplete knowledge of the Big Bang Theory that you can’t tell the difference between trying to convince without evidence or trying to conclude without evidence. But it is an hilarious and ironical misuse of words that imply a purpose and intelligence behind an inanimate data set.


“Science” does not have the self-awaremness to INFER anything at all.
Sorry, just had to laugh out loud at this happening so many times in your posts.

Commonly Confused Words: infer / imply

Both imply and infer are verbs.

Both verbs have to do with the communication of information.

The difference between the two is that imply refers to giving information, while infer refers to receiving information.

Imply
Imply means to strongly suggest the truth or existence of something that is not expressly stated.
The speaker, or someone who is giving information, may imply something.

Infer
Infer means to deduce or conclude information from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statement of that information.
The listener, or someone who is receiving information, may infer something.


The following examples clearly show the difference between the two words:


- What are you implying (suggesting) by your remark?
- What should I infer (conclude) from your remark?

And if you think this sentence should use the word “conclude” then you may see the root of your reasoning problem.
The science we have in hand now reasonably concludes an absolute beginning.


I dunno about you, but “suggests” sure makes more sense.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

THIS is what I wonder about more than the rest. Even if any abstruse EoG argument were air-tight it'd have no pragmatic significance. The universe remains a godless one except for some theists going on about there being a god anyway.

Not quite getting you there. Are you asserting that even if God exists and created the universe….the universe would still be Godless?
How does that work without an equivocation somewhere between God and Godless?
Because….
I’m only trying to present and defend the evidence and reasoning that God exists. I’m not in any way claiming all will believe and practice Christianity.

I was saying that I am curious about where the God is NOW. Theists trying to stick their God in little pockets of mystery here and there is not strong support of EoG, when EoG arguments and the believer's holy texts are the only places their God ever shows up here IN the universe.

As for the rest of what you were going on about, I wasn't describing any of the reasoning to be supernatural. "Supernatural reasoning"... that's nothing but bizarre to me. What the heck would "supernatural reasoning" even look like??

It really is a little mystery creature, a little mystery god. It seems to need a little bit of science. Too much and it dies.

I once claimed that the universe was created and being maintained by a dust mite in my pillow. Prove me wrong, anyone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I once claimed that the universe was created and being maintained by a dust mite in my pillow. Prove me wrong, anyone.

Could you please stop fluffing that goddamned pillow for the rest of the year?

 

[James Brown]

The whole "Nature|The Universe|Space-Time|what-have-you began at the Big Bang" seems hinky to me.

I can't help but think it would be as if an archaeologist found what turns out to be the oldest stone tool on record, then declares, "This is the world's first stone tool ever made."

When questioned, "Couldn't there be an older stone tool that we don't know of?" he replies, "No, because this is the oldest stone tool we've discovered."

 

[ideologyhunter]

The Chain of Cosmic Turtles solves that conundrum. When in doubt --- Turtles!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The whole "Nature|The Universe|Space-Time|what-have-you began at the Big Bang" seems hinky to me.

My ceilings aren't higher, it's just that my floors are lower. Word play is fun.

Only Learner has been willing to say what he means by "began to exist," which is "arranged." But because everything is constantly in flux, even down to the level of quarks and virtual particles, it's silly to talk about, but we can all understand what Learner means. We could discuss what happens when water "begins" to become ice.

Remez is a different story, just won't touch any kind of definition, understandably, considering it would blow his position away even more. So I guess when people remark about my high ceilings I need to correct them and tell them the floors are just lower. They will be amused. The KCA is remez's amusement park.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

I dunno about you, but “suggests” sure makes more sense.

"Suggests" makes much more sense. The Big Bang model 'suggests' many different things to different people. As far as I am aware all the many cosmological models include the BB model because it describes the observed observations. Guth added his 'inflation' model to BB because he saw it as 'suggested'. Others propose models (from modified steady state to cyclic models) that add to the BB because they saw it as 'suggested'.

 

[Lion IRC]

The idea that science says the universe has an absolute beginning is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory.

Read it again. I never said the science absolutely proves that the universe absolutely began. I have addressed this many times. The science we have in hand now reasonably infers an absolute beginning. The term “absolute beginning” means that all space, matter and time began to exist not that it absolutely began.

This is an important point. And countless numbers of theistic KCA apologists willingly concede over and over and over again, that a 'thing' which did not begin to exist, does NOT need a causal explanation. DUH!!!

A past-eternal, perpetual motion universe does not require a First Cause. Neither does a past eternal God or gods.

But the KCA can equally apply both to a thing which begins to exist or to an event which begins to happen

Consider a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

The atheist, on the other hand, will invoke "quantum spookiness" as the cause. Or they will mumble something about an infinite 'multiverse' of billiard tables in which it is eventually inevitable that somewhere, at sometime, there will exist a parallel universe in which billiard balls just spontaneously 'happen' to start moving all by themselves for no reason and without any prior cause.

 

[skepticalbip]

The idea that science says the universe has an absolute beginning is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory.

Read it again. I never said the science absolutely proves that the universe absolutely began. I have addressed this many times. The science we have in hand now reasonably infers an absolute beginning. The term “absolute beginning” means that all space, matter and time began to exist not that it absolutely began.

This is an important point. And countless numbers of theistic KCA apologists willingly concede over and over and over again, that a 'thing' which did not begin to exist, does NOT need a causal explanation. DUH!!!

A past-eternal, perpetual motion universe does not require a First Cause. Neither does a past eternal God or gods.

But the KCA can equally apply both to a thing which begins to exist or to an event which begins to happen

Consider a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

The atheist, on the other hand, will invoke "quantum spookiness" as the cause. Or they will mumble something about an infinite 'multiverse' of billiard tables in which it is eventually inevitable that somewhere, at sometime, there will exist a parallel universe in which billiard balls just spontaneously 'happen' to start moving all by themselves for no reason and without any prior cause.

You are creating a strawman to argue against. Science (and reasonable atheists) say that they don't know. The real question to be argued is if "goddidit" is a more rational position to hold than to admit that the universe of many billions of years ago is unknown and making educated guesses that may or may not be close to reality.

But then last Tuesdayism would also be a rational position if 'goddidit' is considered rational.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The idea that science says the universe has an absolute beginning is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory.

Read it again. I never said the science absolutely proves that the universe absolutely began. I have addressed this many times. The science we have in hand now reasonably infers an absolute beginning. The term “absolute beginning” means that all space, matter and time began to exist not that it absolutely began.

This is an important point. And countless numbers of theistic KCA apologists willingly concede over and over and over again, that a 'thing' which did not begin to exist, does NOT need a causal explanation. DUH!!!

A past-eternal, perpetual motion universe does not require a First Cause. Neither does a past eternal God or gods.

But the KCA can equally apply both to a thing which begins to exist or to an event which begins to happen

Consider a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

The atheist, on the other hand, will invoke "quantum spookiness" as the cause. Or they will mumble something about an infinite 'multiverse' of billiard tables in which it is eventually inevitable that somewhere, at sometime, there will exist a parallel universe in which billiard balls just spontaneously 'happen' to start moving all by themselves for no reason and without any prior cause.

Any event will always include some thing or things. You can't have events without things, so you are making a distinction without a difference, more word play, more KCA silliness. And "inanimate" is just language. Everything is in motion.

Quantum dynamics aside there are countless reports of things happening just like the billiard example, and absolutely no proof that they did. This demonstrates that people just like to tell tall tales. Enter gods, ghosts, ghouls and all manner of magic creatures with magic powers and abilities. Seems we like to invent and tell stories, that much is certain. And story-telling behavior must have had some survival advantage or it wouldn't be so common, but it certainly doesn't make the fantastic critters real.

A rational person, atheist or not, who is told a story about billiard balls magically beginning to move probably hasn't even heard about quantum entanglement, "spooky action at a distance" or John Bell. He will most likely politely listen to just another tall tale, as I have many times. No harm, no foul, just more woo.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The idea that science says the universe has an absolute beginning is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory.

Read it again. I never said the science absolutely proves that the universe absolutely began. I have addressed this many times. The science we have in hand now reasonably infers an absolute beginning. The term “absolute beginning” means that all space, matter and time began to exist not that it absolutely began.

This is an important point. And countless numbers of theistic KCA apologists willingly concede over and over and over again, that a 'thing' which did not begin to exist, does NOT need a causal explanation. DUH!!!

A past-eternal, perpetual motion universe does not require a First Cause. Neither does a past eternal God or gods.

But the KCA can equally apply both to a thing which begins to exist or to an event which begins to happen

Except the KCA is designed to try to create a problem that a very convenient deity could solve. The KCA is the Passing the Buck Argument.

Consider...

This completely incompatible analogy.

...a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

The atheist, on the other hand, will invoke "quantum spookiness" as the cause.

Like when flies spontaneously came to life via abiogensis in meat.

 

[DBT]

A past-eternal, perpetual motion universe does not require a First Cause. Neither does a past eternal God or gods.

We have abundant evidence for the existence of a Universe. We have no evidence for the existence of a God or gods.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

Consider a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

Weird... So if you saw a billiard ball on a table start moving 'by itself' your firm conclusion would be that god moved it?

You wouldn't even consider that it was possibly a gust of wind, a small earth tremor you didn't notice, the building maybe settled a little, or other possibilities?

The atheist, on the other hand, will invoke "quantum spookiness" as the cause. Or they will mumble something about an infinite 'multiverse' of billiard tables in which it is eventually inevitable that somewhere, at sometime, there will exist a parallel universe in which billiard balls just spontaneously 'happen' to start moving all by themselves for no reason and without any prior cause.

No,.. an atheist with any sense would consider possibilities such as I mentioned above that you would not consider.

 

[Learner]

The whole "Nature|The Universe|Space-Time|what-have-you began at the Big Bang" seems hinky to me.

My ceilings aren't higher, it's just that my floors are lower. Word play is fun.

Only Learner has been willing to say what he means by "began to exist," which is "arranged." But because everything is constantly in flux, even down to the level of quarks and virtual particles, it's silly to talk about, but we can all understand what Learner means. We could discuss what happens when water "begins" to become ice.

I'm not the only one, in context to that, which is within this physical universe i.e. after the BB point. But it's good we sort of agree with this particular aspect of "begin to exist" ...atoms arranged from one structure to another etc..

 

[Learner]

... snip ...

Consider a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

Weird... So if you saw a billiard ball on a table start moving 'by itself' your firm conclusion would be that god moved it?

You wouldn't even consider that it was possibly a gust of wind, a small earth tremor you didn't notice, the building maybe settled a little, or other possibilities?

I think Lion probably means AFTER considering and ticking off the obvious possibilties.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... snip ...

Consider a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

Weird... So if you saw a billiard ball on a table start moving 'by itself' your firm conclusion would be that god moved it?

You wouldn't even consider that it was possibly a gust of wind, a small earth tremor you didn't notice, the building maybe settled a little, or other possibilities?

I think Lion probably means AFTER considering and ticking off the obvious possibilities.

For many people woo is their first inclination. It's just the way their brains are presently. We inherit much instinctive behavior complete with predispositions, and then we are exposed to environmental influences. Woo feels good and is healthy so long as one doesn't make a fatal habit of pretending that reality is something that it isn't. If I can be convinced that billiard balls are being moved by spooky creatures with magic powers I should probably get back on the wagon before the ship sails.

It's fascinating that so many people need their belief in magic. Maybe it's the only way they are able to experience awe and wonder and so their reality must be underpinned by woo. It must be healthy for them from strictly a survival standpoint, a kind of non-fatal addiction.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

Consider a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

Weird... So if you saw a billiard ball on a table start moving 'by itself' your firm conclusion would be that god moved it?

You wouldn't even consider that it was possibly a gust of wind, a small earth tremor you didn't notice, the building maybe settled a little, or other possibilities?

I think Lion probably means AFTER considering and ticking off the obvious possibilties.

I doubt that since he was trying to make some sort of point... his strawman of what atheists would claim. But even if lion did mean AFTER, it would still be a really odd conclusion that 'goddidit' just because none of the guesses could be verified absolutely as the reason when most sane people would just shrug and say, "I don't know why it moved".

I occasionally hear a 'bump in the night'. When investigated, I will often find something like a broom that was propped against a wall had fallen over. There are lots of reasons it could have fallen that I can't verify but that doesn't lead to god did it or even that a poltergeist is active. Limbs and branches are continually falling out of trees 'on their own'... does this lead to a conclusion that god spends his time pruning trees?

ETA:
It seems there is a big difference between the religious mindset and the atheist mindset. Atheists recognize and acknowledge that there is much that they don't know and much that they can't know. The religious assume they are omniscient so there are no 'unknowns' for them even though most of their answers to questions is, "god did it".