Categories Of Belief In Deities

[remez]

I told you I was clearly Christian. So I’m not sure what you want. So I’m guessing that what you are looking for is more what kind of Christian. Like OEC or YEC? Well OEC. I believe Christians should be able to defend their faith and that most cannot. My case for Christianity is a cumulative case. I lean more towards Molinism. I believe God gave us two revelations, general and specific. Explained earlier. I do not believe that science and Christianity are in obvious conflict. I belief science and philosophy better supports theism than atheism. I believe naturalism is insufficient to explain nature itself. I take the Bible seriously, meaning in short, I take it literally where it was meant to be literally. I believe the universe began to exist. I’m undecided as to eschatology. I do not believe that worldwide means global. Etc. etc. etc.

Science is overtly built upon philosophy. It existence depends upon logic, causality, forensics, metaphysical law of uniformity, realism, ethics, uniformitarianism, etc. Science cannot account for the math it relies upon. The scientific method is a system of steps that we philosophical devised. Science is philosophically limited to nature. Scientism is self-defeating and your philosophical reasoning to conclude science doesn’t require philosophy smacks of blind scientism.

Notice “naturalism says”….. is a philosophy. No way around that.
Naturalism is a philosophical epistemology. So I ask you……if nature began to exist….. Could it have a natural cause?

Neither is naturalism.

Again I did not say it was provable. I addressed this earlier with you. Sufficient reason stands as judge in all belief aside from math and logic. Including your philosophical naturalism.

You can make a subjective passement but there is no possible evidence for an actual proof. Attempted proofs all have logical flaws. Bootstrapping.

Like the one you just made right there to support naturalism. We’re both in the same boat here, neither is certain. Thus the real issue here is …..which of our worldviews has the more evidence and sufficient reasoning. In a courtroom the standard is …..”Beyond reasonable doubt” not certainty/proof.

I took a psych class Alternate Sates Of Awareness. As an experiment he held up a series of envelopes with symbols inside and we had to deduce them. The class was at the statistical average, random chance. At that point science ends. Unless a phenomena can be demonstrated science can not be applied.

Analogy fails.

Any creation can be investigated for evidences of its creator. Even in your experiment I can reasonably conclude that your professor created the event, even though I don’t know his particular method. I don’t know how God did everything. But I do see an overwhelming amount of evidence to sufficiently conclude that this creation/universe was his doing. Guilty as charged. He left to many evidences to be ignored.

God and proofs of god are not for science. Science does not apply.

Your honor… that assertion is the faulty conclusion of his unsupported philosophically flawed naturalism. It assumes that I claim science can prove God. I have not and do not. I fully stipulate that science is philosophically limited to natural explanations. I only reasonably assert that science can support premises in a cumulative case that can be made for God’s existence.

One can make the complexity argument. The unversed looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed. Another logical fallacy. Non sequitur.

Before one attempts to counter the arguments from design or to design. One should know them well enough as not to construct straw man ARGUMENTS. Right there you’re presenting an OLD argument that has been defeated so many times. It is sickening to witness that so many still in belief that the argument from design has been defeated. You present straw man counters and simply believe they did their job.

Science can refute specific religious claims, like YEC. Claimed miracles are hit or miss. Some people pray and think get answered others do not.

More shot gunning. Well……
I concur with your YEC assessment, but that changes nothing for the natural theologian. Miracles are by definition, events that cannot be explained naturally. So in your limited worldview….non-existent, but that in no way infers naturalism is true. The only miracle I have presented is the creation of this universe. A natural theologian would not present prayer as evidence of God’s existence.

Modern science reduces religious experience to biology and brain chemistry.

That is your unproven subjective philosophy that you blindly believe. Care to provide any evidence as to how chemistry and physics determines truth?

Did ancient Zog who controlled fire have articulate speech, writing, and philosophy? Nope. It is a function of the brain.

We all do 'science'. Observe, hypothesis, test hypothesis, accept-reject-modify hypothesis. 'The Method'.

There are videos of squirrels figuring out how to defeat squirrel proof bird feeders. They observe the problem, try a solution, and modify until success. Science is often trial and error. Chimps quarry stones, fusion into tools to crack nuts, and the tool making is passed on by observation and mimic. A long list. Humans do it better because of our articulate speech, writing, and math. Which is a function of our brains.

As to being clearly Christian, as evidenced on the forum that can mean anything. You have to articulate.

Philosophy meaning non science intellectuals add meaning to science and attempt to explant why. When confronted with a problem never met anyone who referred to a work of philosophy. We use our brains, so to speak.

Philosophy comments on what is. In the 19th century Natural Philosophy gave way to modern empirical mathematical model based science. The old metaphysical approaches were inadequate and became obsolete.

Other than Descartes who articulated The Method as it is called, there ins no manual on how science is done. It is a long history of trial and error. We have no a priori knowledge . Philosophers have value. I found Popper very useful in understand the dynamics of society and science and how truth is derived culturally. That and a few others.


An individual may have a working philosophy but it is not a necessity. We learn by doing with others who came before us.

While more complicated than being a carpenter science is an occupation and a job. You need to learn basic facts and lab skills, then get experience on the job. Demystify science. I knew a physicist who worked at MIT Lincoln Labs. As he put it people came in, did their work, and went home. He was into amature sports car racing.

Let us see this scientific proof o yours of a creator.

Last time I addressed a shot gunned post like that you blamed me.
So please understand.....
Your reply was confusing. Because in our last post we addressed several different issues. And your reply seemed to address some of those issues in scrambled order. Please match up your reply with the issues you were addressing in our last post. So that we can continue the line of reasoning for each issue. As it sits right now……you completely shot gunned a whole new group of concerns to address. I'm particularity interested in how your squirrel figures into your reasoning. Scrat seemed smarter anyway.
And.....
What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
for fun.............
Just curious are you referring to the Zog from the Far Side cartoons. Zog was one of my favorites particularly "Hey Look what Zog do."

 

[Politesse]

And.....
What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
for fun.............

He says that to all the Christians.

 

[steve_bank]

I told you I was clearly Christian. So I’m not sure what you want. So I’m guessing that what you are looking for is more what kind of Christian. Like OEC or YEC? Well OEC. I believe Christians should be able to defend their faith and that most cannot. My case for Christianity is a cumulative case. I lean more towards Molinism. I believe God gave us two revelations, general and specific. Explained earlier. I do not believe that science and Christianity are in obvious conflict. I belief science and philosophy better supports theism than atheism. I believe naturalism is insufficient to explain nature itself. I take the Bible seriously, meaning in short, I take it literally where it was meant to be literally. I believe the universe began to exist. I’m undecided as to eschatology. I do not believe that worldwide means global. Etc. etc. etc.

Science is overtly built upon philosophy. It existence depends upon logic, causality, forensics, metaphysical law of uniformity, realism, ethics, uniformitarianism, etc. Science cannot account for the math it relies upon. The scientific method is a system of steps that we philosophical devised. Science is philosophically limited to nature. Scientism is self-defeating and your philosophical reasoning to conclude science doesn’t require philosophy smacks of blind scientism.

Notice “naturalism says”….. is a philosophy. No way around that.
Naturalism is a philosophical epistemology. So I ask you……if nature began to exist….. Could it have a natural cause?

Neither is naturalism.

Again I did not say it was provable. I addressed this earlier with you. Sufficient reason stands as judge in all belief aside from math and logic. Including your philosophical naturalism.

Like the one you just made right there to support naturalism. We’re both in the same boat here, neither is certain. Thus the real issue here is …..which of our worldviews has the more evidence and sufficient reasoning. In a courtroom the standard is …..”Beyond reasonable doubt” not certainty/proof.

I took a psych class Alternate Sates Of Awareness. As an experiment he held up a series of envelopes with symbols inside and we had to deduce them. The class was at the statistical average, random chance. At that point science ends. Unless a phenomena can be demonstrated science can not be applied.

Analogy fails.

Any creation can be investigated for evidences of its creator. Even in your experiment I can reasonably conclude that your professor created the event, even though I don’t know his particular method. I don’t know how God did everything. But I do see an overwhelming amount of evidence to sufficiently conclude that this creation/universe was his doing. Guilty as charged. He left to many evidences to be ignored.

God and proofs of god are not for science. Science does not apply.

Your honor… that assertion is the faulty conclusion of his unsupported philosophically flawed naturalism. It assumes that I claim science can prove God. I have not and do not. I fully stipulate that science is philosophically limited to natural explanations. I only reasonably assert that science can support premises in a cumulative case that can be made for God’s existence.

One can make the complexity argument. The unversed looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed. Another logical fallacy. Non sequitur.

Before one attempts to counter the arguments from design or to design. One should know them well enough as not to construct straw man ARGUMENTS. Right there you’re presenting an OLD argument that has been defeated so many times. It is sickening to witness that so many still in belief that the argument from design has been defeated. You present straw man counters and simply believe they did their job.

Science can refute specific religious claims, like YEC. Claimed miracles are hit or miss. Some people pray and think get answered others do not.

More shot gunning. Well……
I concur with your YEC assessment, but that changes nothing for the natural theologian. Miracles are by definition, events that cannot be explained naturally. So in your limited worldview….non-existent, but that in no way infers naturalism is true. The only miracle I have presented is the creation of this universe. A natural theologian would not present prayer as evidence of God’s existence.

Modern science reduces religious experience to biology and brain chemistry.

That is your unproven subjective philosophy that you blindly believe. Care to provide any evidence as to how chemistry and physics determines truth?

Did ancient Zog who controlled fire have articulate speech, writing, and philosophy? Nope. It is a function of the brain.

We all do 'science'. Observe, hypothesis, test hypothesis, accept-reject-modify hypothesis. 'The Method'.

There are videos of squirrels figuring out how to defeat squirrel proof bird feeders. They observe the problem, try a solution, and modify until success. Science is often trial and error. Chimps quarry stones, fusion into tools to crack nuts, and the tool making is passed on by observation and mimic. A long list. Humans do it better because of our articulate speech, writing, and math. Which is a function of our brains.

As to being clearly Christian, as evidenced on the forum that can mean anything. You have to articulate.

Philosophy meaning non science intellectuals add meaning to science and attempt to explant why. When confronted with a problem never met anyone who referred to a work of philosophy. We use our brains, so to speak.

Philosophy comments on what is. In the 19th century Natural Philosophy gave way to modern empirical mathematical model based science. The old metaphysical approaches were inadequate and became obsolete.

Other than Descartes who articulated The Method as it is called, there ins no manual on how science is done. It is a long history of trial and error. We have no a priori knowledge . Philosophers have value. I found Popper very useful in understand the dynamics of society and science and how truth is derived culturally. That and a few others.


An individual may have a working philosophy but it is not a necessity. We learn by doing with others who came before us.

While more complicated than being a carpenter science is an occupation and a job. You need to learn basic facts and lab skills, then get experience on the job. Demystify science. I knew a physicist who worked at MIT Lincoln Labs. As he put it people came in, did their work, and went home. He was into amature sports car racing.

Let us see this scientific proof o yours of a creator.

Last time I addressed a shot gunned post like that you blamed me.
So please understand.....
Your reply was confusing. Because in our last post we addressed several different issues. And your reply seemed to address some of those issues in scrambled order. Please match up your reply with the issues you were addressing in our last post. So that we can continue the line of reasoning for each issue. As it sits right now……you completely shot gunned a whole new group of concerns to address. I'm particularity interested in how your squirrel figures into your reasoning. Scrat seemed smarter anyway.
And.....
What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
for fun.............
Just curious are you referring to the Zog from the Far Side cartoons. Zog was one of my favorites particularly "Hey Look what Zog do."

View attachment 26093

If your posts make you feel vindicated and happy, then good for you. Post away.

 

[steve_bank]

And.....
What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
for fun.............

He says that to all the Christians.

That is because all Christians are essentially the same . Like eating the same frozen dinner night after night after night.

 

[Politesse]

And.....
What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
for fun.............

He says that to all the Christians.

That is because all Christians are essentially the same . Like eating the same frozen dinner night after night after night.

Wait, how do you know what we're all like, if none of us ever "explain our beliefs" to you satisfactorily?

Is it ESP? Do you ESP us to get your information? My god I knew the atheist technocracy was up to something!

 

[atrib]

Let us examine your hypothesis and see where it leads. For the theistic creator hypothesis to be true, something necessarily existed before the Big Bang event; at a minimum, a supernatural entity

ok

The theistic hypothesis also tells us that this entity does things, like create universes and meddle in their workings. Change requires time, and therefore this entity experiences time,

Since creation….yes.

Nonsense. How could you possibly know what God's schedule has been for the eternity that it has allegedly existed?

For something to exist and to change, the passage of time is needed. For this god to even have a thought requires the passage of time. Are you suggesting that this god has "existed" in a state of eternal stasis without doing anything. And then it suddenly animated one day and decided to create the universe? How was this condition of stasis achieved and maintained without the passage of time? If no time passed, how can its existence be defined as eternal?

and is subject to the arrow of time.

What do you mean by subject?

Is affected by.

Did this entity begin to exist at some point? …..
…..
If the answer is no, then this creator entity must have existed forever. But that cannot be true because entropy would have reduced this entity to nothing within a finite period of time.

Entropy is a condition of our universe. Theism asserts a transcendent creator that created a universe that is governed with entropy. Why and how did entropy have to exist before there was a universe?

The entropy of a system is a description of the state of the system. A system is an arrangement of matter/energy and can be anything we are interested in studying - our universe as a whole, galaxies, solar systems, planets, human beings, a refrigerator, or the god that you hypothesize.

The entropy of a system is related to the arrow of time. The arrow of time relentlessly drives all systems to a state of increasing entropy, or increasing disorderliness, as the amount of usable energy that is available to the system grows smaller. While the entropy of a system can be temporarily decreased by adding usable energy to the system, at the limit, there is no more usable energy (energy gradients) left to exploit. With no energy gradients, nothing can change, and time ceases to pass.

Nothing is eternal. Not even supermassive black holes which have lifespans of trillions of trillions of years. If your hypothesized god is subject to the arrow of time and is able to do things like create universes, it must also be subject to its effects, including decay into nothingness. If you claim otherwise, you have explain why this hypothesized god never runs out of usable energy, describe the domain within which such an existence is possible, and explain how people can verify the physics of this god and its domain. You have to do the work to describe how this system works. Otherwise all you are doing is making an unsupported, unfalsifiable claim, which has no value or explanatory power.

Your theistic hypothesis essentially boils down to special pleading:

Nothing existed before the Big Bang. But God existed before the Big Bang.

That is one so simple you should have looked it up before suggesting it as a counter. It would be like me using the salinity of the oceans to infer a young earth. Your flaw lacks understanding of the problem. Consider…..Why is there something rather than nothing?

So correct me. Where is my understanding of your position flawed?

Perpetual motion machines cannot exist. But God is a perpetual motion machine.

God is an eternal transcendent personal efficient cause not a perpetual motion machine. God is not governed by the natural physical laws of this universe.
So……
How is God a perpetual motion machine?

A perpetual motion machine is a system that never runs out of usable energy. If your god has existed for eternity, it is, by definition, a perpetual motion machine. Real systems run out of usable energy in finite time and cease to exist, as explained previously.

Even a superficial examination of the problem should have led you to conclude that the theistic hypothesis is fatally flawed. Yet you keep telling us that you have educated yourself in this matter and pondered deeply on this problem. How is it possible that you missed these obvious flaws in your reasoning?

Even a superficial examination of your presented flaws one can see that your flaws are flawed and need a defense in order to be considered successful counters.

The flaws are real. If you are proposing that a creator god exists, it is incumbent on you to describe the properties of this god, and explain, at least hypothetically, how this god can exist eternally and do work, within whatever domain it exists in, and what the properties of this domain might look like. You have to do the work to support your claim.

Finally, you have to explain why the properties that you attribute to this god could not also be attributed to a non-sentient system outside our visible universe that can likewise exist for eternity and do work (create universes). Why does it have to be God, and more specifically, Biblegod? Making up shit is easy, and doing the actual work is hard.

 

[steve_bank]

Christians widely presume to know the will of god outside of what scripture says.

It may be how they derive a sense of power, by being a mouthpiece and agent of a god.

 

[remez]

For something to exist and to change, the passage of time is needed.

I concur with that relational view of time.

For this god to even have a thought requires the passage of time.

A personal God does not require the need to experience a temporal succession of thoughts. He knows the whole content of temporal thought in a single eternal intuition. Just like you can apprehend all the parts of a circle in a single sensory intuition. God is omniscient…….he has all knowledge….he could know content of all knowledge past, present and future in a simultaneous and eternal intuition. Thus a personal God with the attribute of omniscience does not require the existence of time “prior” to creation.

Did this entity begin to exist at some point? …..
…..
If the answer is no, then this creator entity must have existed forever. But that cannot be true because entropy would have reduced this entity to nothing within a finite period of time.

Entropy is a condition of our universe. Theism asserts a transcendent creator that created a universe that is governed with entropy. Why and how did entropy have to exist before there was a universe?

The entropy of a system is a description of the state of the system. A system is an arrangement of matter/energy and can be anything we are interested in studying - our universe as a whole, galaxies, solar systems, planets, human beings, a refrigerator, or the god that you hypothesize.

How is an immaterial, non-physical, eternal God different then all those materially, physically, temporal creations you named?

The entropy of a system is related to the arrow of time. The arrow of time relentlessly drives all systems to a state of increasing entropy, or increasing disorderliness, as the amount of usable energy that is available to the system grows smaller. While the entropy of a system can be temporarily decreased by adding usable energy to the system, at the limit, there is no more usable energy (energy gradients) left to exploit. With no energy gradients, nothing can change, and time ceases to pass.

How is God a system upon which his created law of entropy can act?

Nothing is eternal.

Reasonably something has to be……..

Not even supermassive black holes which have lifespans of trillions of trillions of years. If your hypothesized god is subject to the arrow of time and is able to do things like create universes, it must also be subject to its effects, including decay into nothingness.

….. it just cannot be material. You are conflating the material with the immaterial. I agree with you that nothing material is eternal and thus subject to the law of entropy.

If you claim otherwise, you have explain why this hypothesized god never runs out of usable energy,

He is eternal because logically there is something rather than nothing. Thus something must be the first eternal all powerful cause. The attributes of God match that necessary cause. The material/natural entities you conflate with God do not have those attributes and thus are subject to God’s law of entropy.

describe the domain within which such an existence is possible,

God’s eternality beyond nature…….

and explain how people can verify the physics of this god and its domain.

It’s not physics. It can’t be. It’s metaphysical. Your epistemology can’t go there. When you try you keep forcing the metaphysical to obey your physical-only epistemology. That is why none of this makes sense to you. You want science to absolutely prove God’s existence. It can’t. But that in no way means God doesn’t exist. It just means your approach/epistemology will never find him. Science/physics is limited to nature. God as creator is beyond nature.

You have to do the work to describe how this system works. Otherwise all you are doing is making an unsupported, unfalsifiable claim, which has no value or explanatory power.

I have been for years. And your conclusion of my beliefs is based upon your limited self-refuting epistemology. You can’t go there. While I can certainly embrace the wonderful truths of science to aid my metaphysical hypotheses…..follow the evidence where it leads. You cannot. You’re limited to natural-only explanations that can’t even explain where nature came from to begin with. Throughout your whole post you are forcing the immaterial to be subject to the material limitations that were created by the immaterial to begin with. And you can’t even really entertain the thought. Thus we will continue to disagree. I have no issue with that whatsoever. The realm of reason is far larger than the science only realm you insist upon.

Your theistic hypothesis essentially boils down to special pleading:

Nothing existed before the Big Bang. But God existed before the Big Bang.

That is one so simple you should have looked it up before suggesting it as a counter. It would be like me using the salinity of the oceans to infer a young earth. Your flaw lacks understanding of the problem. Consider…..Why is there something rather than nothing?

So correct me. Where is my understanding of your position flawed?

First…………There is no “before” the big bang. God is not chronologically “prior” to the big bang. He is casually and explanatorily “prior” to the big bang.
Secondly………It is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Which very briefly means that when God created the universe he did so from nothing. He did not transition some pre-existing material into our universe he created from nothing. And it just so happens to be where the science is leading ….a universe from nothing.
And…..
Thirdly…….God is the efficient cause not a material cause of the universe. The universe doesn’t have a material cause as I just mentioned.

A perpetual motion machine is a system that never runs out of usable energy. If your god has existed for eternity, it is, by definition, a perpetual motion machine. Real systems run out of usable energy in finite time and cease to exist, as explained previously.

Again God is not a material system subject to entropy.

Finally, you have to explain why the properties that you attribute to this god could not also be attributed to a non-sentient system outside our visible universe that can likewise exist for eternity and do work (create universes).

Provide one you think is more viable and I’ll address it.

Why does it have to be God, and more specifically, Biblegod? Making up shit is easy, and doing the actual work is hard.

Shot gunning? Different lines of reasoning that have not been required to this. Don’t assume the reasoning is non-existent just because it has not yet been required. Making up crappy conclusions is easy. Supporting them is the hard part.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If God is outside of time as per Augustine and Boethius, then God must have created everything at once, timelessly. time is but an illusion to us. That means there is no A causes B causes c et al. God creates everything as it is through time and space. All is One Big Now to God. Then that means God does create everything, including all acts of moral evil and natural evil. Therefor God is evil.

So if to save God's supposed perfect goodness with all God sub-goodnesses, mercy, justice, fairness and compassion, we have to abandon God outside of time.

But then we have to ask, where does time come from, so powerful even God is subject to time? Since we know from science that Time is dependent on our speed, as is our mass and dimensions, it is obvious that God is subject to space and time and relativity. Time is part of all of that, not something that can stand a lone outside of the rest of reality. Naturalism is proven, and God cannot be the cause of that.

And how far does this naturalism go? To existence of dimension, energy, the laws of energy that allow quarks and electrons to form, the laws that allow them to form atoms? All of physics and chemistry and thus galaxies, planets and life? Biology and ecology? Evolution and intelligence?

This idea that theism and science work better together than naturalism and science is simply not true. Unless you want to accept a timeless god that created everything, and this creation is timeless and part of the Big Now, and all evil ever was and ever will be thanks to God, is what you are stuck with. And it does not fit the old books like the Bible, Quran, or Book of Mormon.

For myself, I have accepted that God makes no sense and accept that this God does not exist, naturalism does, with its energy, space, time, forces, and all that comes out of this is proven, and trumps this God thing theology does not really 8understand even as they drone on and on about it.

So let us start with this question, how does God fit in with time?

And if God is outside of time, all is as it is, and it always has been. God cannot change things because change can only occur in time.
Things always have been as they are and we are all like flies trapped in amber, and that includes God. And the theologians have been yammering about God and time for centuries and still have not, the bulk of them, figured this simple logical reductio ad absurdum.

Theism is logically feeble.

This God outside of time is found in Augustine, "Confessions - Book XI" and Boethius "Consolations Of Philosophy, Book 5". Once one reads these sources, and follows these ideas out to their logical conclusion, all of theology implodes.

 

[steve_bank]

I hadn't thought about that before.

If god did not create him/her/it self then where didst god come from? An amorphous blob of something needing no energy source and consuming nothing gets lonely or bored and creates a universe with humans as playthings to worship it?

A pretty ugly image.

 

[atrib]

A personal God does not require the need to experience a temporal succession of thoughts. He knows the whole content of temporal thought in a single eternal intuition. Just like you can apprehend all the parts of a circle in a single sensory intuition. God is omniscient…….he has all knowledge….he could know content of all knowledge past, present and future in a simultaneous and eternal intuition. Thus a personal God with the attribute of omniscience does not require the existence of time “prior” to creation.

How is an immaterial, non-physical, eternal God different then all those materially, physically, temporal creations you named?

How is God a system upon which his created law of entropy can act?

….. it just cannot be material. You are conflating the material with the immaterial. I agree with you that nothing material is eternal and thus subject to the law of entropy.

He is eternal because logically there is something rather than nothing. Thus something must be the first eternal all powerful cause. The attributes of God match that necessary cause. The material/natural entities you conflate with God do not have those attributes and thus are subject to God’s law of entropy.

God’s eternality beyond nature…….

It’s not physics. It can’t be. It’s metaphysical. Your epistemology can’t go there. When you try you keep forcing the metaphysical to obey your physical-only epistemology. That is why none of this makes sense to you. You want science to absolutely prove God’s existence. It can’t. But that in no way means God doesn’t exist. It just means your approach/epistemology will never find him. Science/physics is limited to nature. God as creator is beyond nature.

This is gibberish. Claims that convey no information. Claims that can't be tested or verified. Claims that cannot even be rationally hypothesized using the knowledge available to us today. If that is all your epistemology can produce, then you are right, I want no part of it. So you go on spending your life desperately trying to shoehorn your faith into something that may seem acceptable to you, in just the right light, if you shut one eye and squint with the other, and turn off your mind, and use a lot of big words.

I have been for years. And your conclusion of my beliefs is based upon your limited self-refuting epistemology. You can’t go there. While I can certainly embrace the wonderful truths of science to aid my metaphysical hypotheses…..follow the evidence where it leads. You cannot. You’re limited to natural-only explanations that can’t even explain where nature came from to begin with. Throughout your whole post you are forcing the immaterial to be subject to the material limitations that were created by the immaterial to begin with. And you can’t even really entertain the thought. Thus we will continue to disagree. I have no issue with that whatsoever. The realm of reason is far larger than the science only realm you insist upon.

Making up shit to allow yourself to cling on desperately to your faith is not reason, or reasonable. But some of you religious people do it anyway. It would be much more honest to just state that you have faith in your God, and you don't need evidence to justify this faith. But that would take integrity.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I hadn't thought about that before.

If god did not create him/her/it self then where didst god come from? An amorphous blob of something needing no energy source and consuming nothing gets lonely or bored and creates a universe with humans as playthings to worship it?

A pretty ugly image.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there a God rather than no God?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Because Edna needs a reason to bring creamed corn to the Methodist potluck. And that is cosmic.

 

[abaddon]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Cuz humans can't conceive nothing but yet pretend they do and therefore presume there's even a conceptual "nothingness" anyone can "reasonably" talk about as a possible (really? how do you know?) alternative to "somethingness". So, in short, it's

Why is there a God rather than no God?

Cuz ancient humans thought in those terms. Again,

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"Nothing come from nothing"
- Parmenides.

That is, nothing does not have ability to become something. So something has always existed. Now the argument turns to what that something is. Naturalism vs supernaturalism.

“One god there is, in no way like mortal creatures either in bodily form or in the thought of his mind. The whole of him sees, the whole of him thinks, the whole of him hears. He stays always motionless in the same place; it is not fitting that he should move about now this way, now that.”
― Xenophanes

Other Greeks were naturalists. All is water, Thales, ,air, Anaximander, atoms and the void, Leucippus, Democritus.

Or did all emanate from primal chaos? Hesiod and others.

 

[remez]

This God outside of time is found in Augustine, "Confessions - Book XI" and Boethius "Consolations Of Philosophy, Book 5". Once one reads these sources, and follows these ideas out to their logical conclusion, all of theology implodes.

Seriously? All theologies? Are there no theologies that reason God is in time? Or that God’s relation to time changes with creation?

You chose one theological line of reasoning and sort of reduce it to absurdum and then declared that all theology implodes. That would be a silly as me stating that Haeckel’s biogenic law implodes all of evolution.

 

[remez]

A personal God does not require the need to experience a temporal succession of thoughts. He knows the whole content of temporal thought in a single eternal intuition. Just like you can apprehend all the parts of a circle in a single sensory intuition. God is omniscient…….he has all knowledge….he could know content of all knowledge past, present and future in a simultaneous and eternal intuition. Thus a personal God with the attribute of omniscience does not require the existence of time “prior” to creation.

How is an immaterial, non-physical, eternal God different then all those materially, physically, temporal creations you named?

How is God a system upon which his created law of entropy can act?

….. it just cannot be material. You are conflating the material with the immaterial. I agree with you that nothing material is eternal and thus subject to the law of entropy.

He is eternal because logically there is something rather than nothing. Thus something must be the first eternal all powerful cause. The attributes of God match that necessary cause. The material/natural entities you conflate with God do not have those attributes and thus are subject to God’s law of entropy.

God’s eternality beyond nature…….

It’s not physics. It can’t be. It’s metaphysical. Your epistemology can’t go there. When you try you keep forcing the metaphysical to obey your physical-only epistemology. That is why none of this makes sense to you. You want science to absolutely prove God’s existence. It can’t. But that in no way means God doesn’t exist. It just means your approach/epistemology will never find him. Science/physics is limited to nature. God as creator is beyond nature.

This is gibberish. Claims that convey no information. Claims that can't be tested or verified. Claims that cannot even be rationally hypothesized using the knowledge available to us today. If that is all your epistemology can produce, then you are right, I want no part of it. So you go on spending your life desperately trying to shoehorn your faith into something that may seem acceptable to you, in just the right light, if you shut one eye and squint with the other, and turn off your mind, and use a lot of big words.

I have been for years. And your conclusion of my beliefs is based upon your limited self-refuting epistemology. You can’t go there. While I can certainly embrace the wonderful truths of science to aid my metaphysical hypotheses…..follow the evidence where it leads. You cannot. You’re limited to natural-only explanations that can’t even explain where nature came from to begin with. Throughout your whole post you are forcing the immaterial to be subject to the material limitations that were created by the immaterial to begin with. And you can’t even really entertain the thought. Thus we will continue to disagree. I have no issue with that whatsoever. The realm of reason is far larger than the science only realm you insist upon.

Making up shit to allow yourself to cling on desperately to your faith is not reason, or reasonable. But some of you religious people do it anyway. It would be much more honest to just state that you have faith in your God, and you don't need evidence to justify this faith. But that would take integrity.

You said nothing in your tantrum there, that I can’t tantrum back at you.
So please….
I invite you to step out of your tantrum and tell me why modern cosmology can’t be used as evidence to support my case that God exists. Again not that you have to agree with it. But why it cannot even be considered as evidence.
Also………..from our last post……..

Finally, you have to explain why the properties that you attribute to this god could not also be attributed to a non-sentient system outside our visible universe that can likewise exist for eternity and do work (create universes).

Provide one you think is more viable and I’ll address it.

…….how was that gibberish? And why didn’t you fulfill your burden?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We have two choices. God in time, God outside of time. I pointed out why neither works in the end. The Flies In Amber scenario. Or God is subject to time, physics and all of reality. And in the end is a superfluous hypothesis that explains exactly noting.

This is a good reason to think God is a bad hypothesis that self destructs when examined carefully.

 

[atrib]

This is gibberish. Claims that convey no information. Claims that can't be tested or verified. Claims that cannot even be rationally hypothesized using the knowledge available to us today. If that is all your epistemology can produce, then you are right, I want no part of it. So you go on spending your life desperately trying to shoehorn your faith into something that may seem acceptable to you, in just the right light, if you shut one eye and squint with the other, and turn off your mind, and use a lot of big words.



Making up shit to allow yourself to cling on desperately to your faith is not reason, or reasonable. But some of you religious people do it anyway. It would be much more honest to just state that you have faith in your God, and you don't need evidence to justify this faith. But that would take integrity.

You said nothing in your tantrum there, that I can’t tantrum back at you.
So please….
I invite you to step out of your tantrum and tell me why modern cosmology can’t be used as evidence to support my case that God exists. Again not that you have to agree with it. But why it cannot even be considered as evidence.
Also………..from our last post……..

Finally, you have to explain why the properties that you attribute to this god could not also be attributed to a non-sentient system outside our visible universe that can likewise exist for eternity and do work (create universes).

Provide one you think is more viable and I’ll address it.

…….how was that gibberish? And why didn’t you fulfill your burden?

Its gibberish because your claims are unsupported by evidence and reason. You have not done the work to demonstrate the validity of your claims, or even to flesh out your claim in any meaningful way so that others may attempt that task. All you have done is made assertions that are so poorly defined as to be unintelligible. What the fuck does "immaterial transcendent personal efficient cause" even mean?

This is the faulty premise you began with:

"The universe began to exist".

1. You have not defined what you mean by the word "universe". Depending on the context, the word universe can mean various things. At a minimum, when discussing cosmological origins:

a. Everything that we can observe (this is how you appear to be using the word). The visible universe.
b. Everything that is hypothesized to exist, referred to in cosmological physics as the multiverse. Our visible universe would be just one part of this multiverse. The existence of the multiverse is predicted by various cosmological models that scientists have developed based on their observations of the visible universe. While we are not able to visit or directly interact with elements of the multiverse outside our visible universe, we can test some of the predictions of our cosmological models for interactions between the multiverse and the visible universe that manifest within the visible universe. As of yet, the validity of the cosmological models is uncertain.

2. Our model of the visible universe can be used to rewind the clock for the visible universe back to a certain point in time (the Big Bang). At this point our model breaks down. We cannot definitively state that our visible universe began to exist at this point, or whether the matter/energy that makes up our visible universe had always existed in some form, and the Big Bang marked some phase change in the state of this matter/energy. Plain English: we don't know whether the visible universe began to exist.

We can further explore the possibilities based on what we do presently understand:

a. The visible universe is all there is.
b. The visible universe is part of a multiverse.

If we select option (a), even though we don't know that this is the correct option, we can say:

a. the visible universe began to exist at the Big Bang.
b. the visible universe marks a transition point from some earlier, unknown state.

If we again select option (a), even though we don't know that this is the correct choice, we can say:

a. the visible universe began to exist out of nothing.
b. something outside the visible universe caused it to come into existence.

And we get stuck at this point for various reasons.

1. We have no observations of universes actually beginning to exist. Within the visible universe, all we can observe are interactions between existing matter/energy and associated changes in state. At the microscopic scale, the laws of the visible universe are non-directional in time - there is no cause and effect built into the underlying reality. What we perceive as cause and effect at macroscopic scales are the manifestations of emergent realities driven by the arrow of time and existing matter/energy gradients. And even within the visible universe, we observe the formation of virtual particles and vacuum energy seemingly out of nothing, which would favor the explanation that matter/energy can come into existence out of nothing. Thus we have no foundation to support a claim that it is impossible for our visible universe to have come into existence out of nothing.

2. If we hypothesize the existence of a cause outside the visible universe, we have shifted the discussion into the domain of the multiverse. And if assume that the multiverse is real, then that opens the door to a vast realm of possibilities that might potentially explain the origins of the visible universe.

In essence, we have several candidate explanations for the existence of our visible universe:

1. The visible universe is everything that exists and it spontaneously arose out of nothing.
2. The visible universe is everything that exists and it arose out of some phase change from a previous state, which may or may not be cyclic.
3. The visible universe is part of a larger domain, the multiverse, which we cannot directly observe, but can predict using observations of the visible universe.

In order to support your claim, you would first have to demonstrate that options 1 and 2 are impossible. And then you would have to demonstrate that within option 3, every potential explanation other than God is impossible, or at the very minimum, highly improbable. And we all know you can't do any of those things. And my strong suspicion is that you possess very little understanding of modern physics, based on everything you say in these forums, despite your repeated proclamations of advanced education in this field. Specialized knowledge in the metaphysical!! Indeed

 

[abaddon]

... And in the end is a superfluous hypothesis that explains exactly noting...

Yes. Superfluous and unparsimonious. It's not dogmatic adherence to naturalism and unjustified prejudice against supernaturalism to find that God as the first cause (assuming, for whatever reason, there is one) is an unreasonable hypothesis. There's a wee little itsy bitsy problem with saying "Where'd 'the universe' come from? Well see, there's this other big mystery with which I answer that big mystery!"