If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Elixir]

... even if lion did mean AFTER, it would still be a really odd conclusion that 'goddidit' when most sane people would just shrug and say, "I don't know why it moved".

Exactly. Religion is a means for ascribing cause to every effect where the actual cause(s) may not be easily explained, may be indeterminate, or is beyond the scope of possible investigation.
It is rudimentary instinct to find comfort in such things.

When people challenge, demean or insult MY God, I don't try to convince them (myself) that (S)He is real - I just get Him/Her to smite the shit outa them!

 

[James Brown]

 

[Rhea]

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..

This sentence is incoherent.

 

[Rhea]

.
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.

On the other hand, if you live INSIDE the 8 ball, you may be unaware of the existence of the other balls, and, with insufficient curiosity or reasoning skills, be unable to understand the cery mundane reason you startwd moving - that you were hit by another ball in motion.


Much like, no doubt, oxygen molecules are surpised ans affronted when they are moved by colliding with another molecule, despite the nucleus having no real contact with the offending matter.

 

[ideologyhunter]

When people challenge, demean or insult MY God, I don't try to convince them (myself) that (S)He is real - I just get Him/Her to smite the shit outa them!

With my god, a slightly different effect. With challengers, demeaners, or insult specialists, I arrange for my god to send them complementary coupons for Dilly Bars. The coupons look like normal issues -- nothing goddy about them. At the close of day, my god says, "And a happy time was had by all." Or "Happy kittens fart sunshine." Or, "Meanwhile, in the space/time continuum, merry bunnies drank Faygo Red Pop on paisley trampolines."
Remember, heaven is an 8-track of Debbie Boone singing 'You Light Up My Life' while Waffle House fixes you a pecan waffle with the house coffee.

 

[Iznomneak]

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.

Why did you add "absolutely proves" above? I have not asked you for "scientific absolute proof", nor will I since science is largely based on induction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction). Your exact quote which I quoted in context was: "the established cosmological paradigm…..is the STANDARD BBM and it infers and (sic) absolute beginning." In other words, the Big Bang Theory (BBT) says there is an absolute beginning to the universe. The BBT doesn't state this. The BBT can only tell us the horizon of where our knowledge of the observable universe had met its limit. We have no real data to look back further in time or even if going looking back further is a meaningful question. The "observable universe" is a subset and is not a synonym for "the universe". Like I said, The KLA 2nd premise relies on a speculative premise. A speculative premise should courageously be classified as such and not be assumed by an untested implication.

Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean we have to ignore the reasonable inference that it began. Hawking and Krauss wrote books attempting to address a beginning universe. Simply crying IDK therefore all reasonable inference is shallow speculation has no virtue at all. It’s burying your head in the sand…..for the purpose to deny the obvious. Was the inference of a Higgs Boson 10 years ago unreasonable?
So again……

Nowhere did I say "IDK therefore all reasonable inference is shallow speculation", those are your words, not mine. Speculation is how science starts to build theories, competing theories require testing to survive or fail (big bang vs steady state). Often an entirely new paradigm is discovered that no one expected and changed things drastically, i.e. Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, galaxies not having enough observable mass to stay together, galaxies moving away from each other at an accelerating pace, just to name a recent few.

You've offered logic scenarios, but I don't see any "scientific testing" in play here to support your statement above "The science we have in hand now reasonably infers an absolute beginning".

 

[Iznomneak]

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.

Carl Sagan did a lot of speculation in the original Cosmos series too, for example Enclopedia Galactica. However at least he would usually lead off with "perhaps,..." or "maybe,...".

 

[remez]

long great weekend

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.

I got that……and was addressing that.……here for the third time is the definition I provided……
Definition………

in American English
(iˈtɜrnəl ; ɪˈtɜrnəl )
ADJECTIVE
1. without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting
2. of eternity
3. forever the same; always true or valid; unchanging
the eternal verities
4. always going on; never stopping; perpetual
eternal rest
5. seeming never to stop; happening very often
her eternal complaints
6. Philosophy and Theology
outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/eternal

I understood that you are using the term that is familiar to you. I assert the same for my own use of eternal.

BUT….. they are overtly different.
SO…logically…….
There must exist some REASON for those different conclusions of “familiar use”.

So why is it the case that you get to assume (not reason) that your “familiar use” is right and mine is wrong?

Like it or not we have to reason out our different …….familiar “uses.”

That is exactly what I was doing. I was addressing the reasoning we each had to be using different ….familiar “uses.” And you faulted me for doing that, in favor of just assuming you were right and I was wrong.

So can we reason this out or are do we just have to accept your familiar use?

Assuming your sincerity and fairness…….you would agree that is what we need to do.
So….
I contend that you over restricted d1……above… “1. without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting” and were completely unaware of d6….. “6. Philosophy and Theology
outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless”

Seriously I was trying to point this out when I first quoted it to you. Please look at it.

I contend that you unknowing reasoned (familiar use) that “existing through all time” absolutely limited the eternal to time. Note the careful wording….it didn’t say existing FOR all time. That would have restricted the eternal to the existence of time. Thus reasoning your “use” to be correct.
However………..
I reasoned “exsiting through all time” to mean time is a subset of the eternal. Clearly supported by d6. There is a beyond time on a metaphysical concept.

I don’t think you were ever truly “familiar” with the theistic reasoning here, hence your assumed “use.” Thus why I continually referenced the history of this reasoning. Not in any way to proclaim that I’m smarter than you. (Sorry about that unintended perception. ) But to sincerely support that my position was common and point out that I’m not making this up.

Where I do take hope is this. If nothing else occurs here…… You are now familiar with the theistic reasoning on this point. Because your angry questions about eternity that followed, indicated that the concept of time as a subset of eternity has at least been conceived. Before we were just talking past one another.
Because….
Theism would not make sense, or even exist, if the eternal was restricted to time. Hence the repeated refrain…..you don’t even allow theism to exist.

 

[remez]

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.

The listener infers, the speaker implies.

You’re absolutely correct….should have been “implies.” In my haste, from my perspective, I was reasoning that we can reasonably infer from the science….however I should have then reversed it to “implies” when I stated it. But…..My point was precisely that the science was not absolute.

 

[remez]

Speculation is how science starts to build theories, competing theories require testing to survive or fail (big bang vs steady state).

Agreed.

Often an entirely new paradigm is discovered that no one expected and changed things drastically, i.e. Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, galaxies not having enough observable mass to stay together, galaxies moving away from each other at an accelerating pace, just to name a recent few.

Not sure where you going with that. CMBR was predicted then found. Supports the SBBM.

You've offered logic scenarios, but I don't see any "scientific testing" in play here to support your statement above "The science we have in hand now reasonably infers an absolute beginning".

If it can't be tested scientifically....you assert that reason can go no further?

The KCA is not a scientific argument. However science does support (not prove) p2. But the argument is for the cause of nature. Science is limited to nature. Right?
So.......
If the universe began….meaning if nature began…..then how could science ever provide an answer for the cause of nature? The answer lies beyond nature out of the reach of science.

Listen I fully embrace science. I welcome its support here for p2. I don’t reason that science can answer everything. To reason that would be scientism. Which is self-refuting.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If it can't be tested scientifically....you assert that reason can go no further?

The KCA is not a scientific argument. However science does support (not prove) p2. But the argument is for the cause of nature. Science is limited to nature. Right?
So.......
If the universe began….meaning if nature began…..then how could science ever provide an answer for the cause of nature? The answer lies beyond nature out of the reach of science.

Listen I fully embrace science. I welcome its support here for p2. I don’t reason that science can answer everything. To reason that would be scientism. Which is self-refuting.

The Kalam is medieval. It was formulated at a time when people didn't even know what caused disease, a time before we could scientifically test for same. People were protecting themselves from vampires and thought lightning was supernatural. At the time of kalam disease was caused by evil spirits. What is the point of a line of religious reasoning that is conveniently constrained by the present limitations of scientific knowledge? Kalam has no more value today than do exorcisms. At best the KCA is an anachronism.

Given time and human survival science can certainly answer everything, at least everything scientific. It cannot answer how evil spirits cause disease or how invisible, magical space creatures abracadabra a universe. Only more religious woo answers questions about events that include magic powers and abilities like how souls get to heaven.

Kalam is like Noah's Ark, only an overly religious devotee thinks it has any modern or scientific significance.

 

[DBT]

Listen I fully embrace science. I welcome its support here for p2. I don’t reason that science can answer everything.

Science does not have all the answers. Far from it. Is that a reason to embrace answers that have been cooked up in the fertile imaginations of ancient people?

 

[Wiploc]

I understood that you are using the term that is familiar to you. I assert the same for my own use of eternal.

I asked what you mean by "eternal," and you gave me a bucketful of alternatives, as if your point was that different people mean different things at different times. Maybe I misinterpreted. Maybe I just spaced.

I do remember you recently referring to something like "number six," but not in a context that tipped me off to the possibility that you were trying to reference the sixth definition in a previously given list. I apologize for not understanding.

I now think that you are giving, "6. ...outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless," as your definition of "eternal." Can you expound or explicate? I'd like to know what you think that means.

So why is it the case that you get to assume (not reason) that your “familiar use” is right and mine is wrong?

Yours isn't wrong. Yours was unknown. Maybe that is in part because you were previously, or intermittently taking the position that gods existed before time. Are you now abandoning that position in favor of this timeless thing?

I was addressing the reasoning we each had to be using different ….familiar “uses.” And you faulted me for doing that, in favor of just assuming you were right and I was wrong.

If I did that, I was wrong. I thought I was beating a definition out of you because you were uncooperatively keeping it a secret.

So can we reason this out or are do we just have to accept your familiar use?

You are the affirmative. You have the burden of proof. You get to carry that burden in words of your choice.

On the other hand, the word you have chosen is problematic, and I don't have the equivalent of "allaverse" and "partaverse" handy to distinguish between the more common meaning and the meaning that I don't yet understand.

But we can proceed with the discussion.

So….
I contend that you over restricted d1……above… “1. without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting” and were completely unaware of d6….. “6. Philosophy and Theology
outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless”

Not unaware. Impatient, rather.

I'm used to Christians saying that god goes back in time as far as time goes, and then, at that point, he does some inexplicable thing like turning at right angles to time, and somehow having an infinitely continuing regression of cause and effect that happens without any time passing.

But you took the contrary position that time goes back only as far as the big bang, but that things happened before that anyway. As I said earlier, in my experience, you're the only one who ever did this.

So, in my perception, (a) were not on the timelessness bandwagon, and (b) you resented it when I provided your arguments for you so that I could refute them. So I've been trying to get you to see the conflict between a timely eternity and a beginning of time.

I reasoned “exsiting through all time” to mean time is a subset of the eternal. Clearly supported by d6.

I'm not with you. Time is supposed to be a subset of timeless?

I don’t think you were ever truly “familiar” with the theistic reasoning here, hence your assumed “use.” Thus why I continually referenced the history of this reasoning. Not in any way to proclaim that I’m smarter than you. (Sorry about that unintended perception. ) But to sincerely support that my position was common and point out that I’m not making this up.

Forget it. Not a problem. Though I think you often overstate your case about how much historical people agreed with your current position.

Theism would not make sense, or even exist, if the eternal was restricted to time.

Case in point.

 

[Rhea]

Logically, is there any difference between (1) a god who exists now, “in time,” and also existed in a period “before time” that “has no time” - presumably having experiences in that no-time in which “he” cannot tell which came first and which came later, and (2) A god that exists now, “in time” and has delusions fully formed, about a previous life?

How would “he” tell the difference?


Seriously, though, if there was “no time” at some point, and a “causal being” existed in it, it is not possible for it to have “caused” anything because there was no “before” or “after” in that space with “no time” and therefore anything the god did was always there and did not “begin” because time is required for anything to “begin.”


So, logically speaking, it is simply not possible to “cause” anything at all during “timelessness”. Timelessness physically means, “everything exists all at once without change.” If anything changes, including the intent to create then you have time. Time IS the measure of change. There can be no change without time, including the act of causing (changing) anything.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, logically speaking, it is simply not possible to “cause” anything at all during “timelessness”. Timelessness physically means, “everything exists all at once without change.” If anything changes, including the intent to create then you have time. Time IS the measure of change. There can be no change without time, including the act of causing (changing) anything.

Another reason to discard kalam as it was invented when people had a completely different meaning of "time." We were still attempting to measure longitude. Accurate enough time pieces wouldn't be built for another half millennium.

 

[James Brown]

Seriously, though, if there was “no time” at some point, and a “causal being” existed in it, it is not possible for it to have “caused” anything because there was no “before” or “after” in that space with “no time” and therefore anything the god did was always there and did not “begin” because time is required for anything to “begin.”

Agreed. If our notion of what happened was, "God existed, and then he decided to create a universe and then he thought about what sort of properties the universe would have and then he created the universe", then we're sneaking in a causal chain of events "before" time existed.

This is easy to do, being locked in time the way we are. (Like asking a fish, "How's the water?") But it's a fallacy nonetheless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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..

This sentence is incoherent.

What Learner is saying is that they don't understand what occurred in the Big Bang.

 

[Wiploc]

I left a word out here:

So, in my perception, (a) were not on the timelessness bandwagon, and (b) you resented it when I provided your arguments for you so that I could refute them. So I've been trying to get you to see the conflict between a timely eternity and a beginning of time.

That should say, "(a) you were not on the timelessness bandwagon."

 

[remez]

The Kalam is medieval. It was formulated at a time when people didn't even know what caused disease, a time before we could scientifically test for same. People were protecting themselves from vampires and thought lightning was supernatural. At the time of kalam disease was caused by evil spirits.

Yes. It began as a purely philosophical argument. But has gathered scientific support since then. So why is that a problem?

What is the point of a line of religious reasoning that is conveniently constrained by the present limitations of scientific knowledge?

I don’t see it as constrained at all. It has only been strengthen by science.

Kalam has no more value today than do exorcisms. At best the KCA is an anachronism.

Your reasoning falls flat. Yes the Kalam is old. It began as a philosophical argument. But science has since provided strong support. So how does that render the KCA anachronistic?

Seriously you are presenting a perfect example of a genetic fallacy.

Given time and human survival science can certainly answer everything, at least everything scientific. It cannot answer how evil spirits cause disease or how invisible, magical space creatures abracadabra a universe.

That is a statement of faith on your part. There is a gap and science will fill it….I just believe it. Not only are you begging the question for naturalism and you are overtly presenting a nature-of-the-gaps fallacy.

If the universe began….meaning that nature began…..and given that science is limited to only natural explanations….THEN HOW is it possible that science can ever provide an answer to how nature began to exist naturally? Nature would have to exist before nature began so that science can explain it…….Abracadabra.

You also seem to be thinking that I’m asserting that science can prove God’s existence….I’m not. All I’m saying is that science can support premises in an argument that concludes God exists.

Kalam is like Noah's Ark, only an overly religious devotee thinks it has any modern or scientific significance.

Apples and oranges.

 

[remez]

Listen I fully embrace science. I welcome its support here for p2. I don’t reason that science can answer everything.

Science does not have all the answers. Far from it. Is that a reason to embrace answers that have been cooked up in the fertile imaginations of ancient people?

Genetic Fallacy.