Do theists sort of think that belieiving in god makes god real?

[abaddon]

Sean Carroll has commented on WL Craig's cherrypicking of quotes from Vilenkin. Which remez of course does in kind.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/09/25/let-the-universe-be-the-universe/

Carroll comments on the limitations of that theorem as well. And makes an important point about cosmology generally. Namely that it's so indefinite at this time that Vilenkin can have his pet conjecture to say "probably yes" about, and Carroll can simultaneously say "probably not" about the same thing, and both have unsound scientific and personal reasons for it. Because, he says, "none of us actually knows".

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

God is eternal, which means he has always been. A being that is eternal cannot be a created being, because it wouldn’t be eternal. Think about it.

Its not the definition per se of eternity - its more that if a supernatural being IS eternal that it lacks the ability to create itself, thus not being all-powerful. It cannot do "everything" since the list of things it cannot do includes at least one item: the inability to bring itself into existence. Its not so much about the fact that it doesn't need to create itself within this definition but that it cannot bring itself into existence by virtue of its own eternity. There is another item to add to the list since if it is eternal it cannot destroy itself. Two things it is incapable of doing. Your god is not all-powerful and on that basis alone does not meet the definition of a being powerful enough to create The universe. We can create and destroy things but that's because we exist.
There is no evidence that this god that you speak of exists/can be described since by the nature of the concept it necessarily defies reason and description. Show me your god. You can't. Provide evidence that your god exists. You can't. Provide evidence that your god is eternal. You can't. Provide evidence that your god created the universe. You can't. You can go on forever providing descriptions of your god and what it is capable of but you are hanging your coats on immaterial hooks so they are falling to the floor.
Inference alone - reasoning yes but no evidence - is insufficient support.
You cannot keep hiding behind the eternity door and pretending that the god you believe in is capable of doing everything: it isn't. Or do you believe that your god can do everything apart from create/destroy itself? It isn't all powerful.

 

[Hermit]

Wow.
I bold faced it for you this time. It's a theorem.

Google "BGV Theorem"
Or
Simply follow the several links I’ve already cited.

From the cosmologists themselves….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Now catch up.

It may well be a theorem. But you still haven't told me what the fuck it is. 'The Paradigm Theorem' would be TPT, and the word paradigm almost always means 'the speaker is a wanker', in my experience.

If you refuse to make your case on the grounds that YOU know what you are talking about, and everyone else is beneath you, then I am under no obligation to give the slightest further credence to your crazy and unsupported nonsense.

You have not only failed to convince me of anything; you have failed to even present your case to me.

What a pointlessly arrogant waste of time your religion is.

A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin had a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters 90 (15): 151301 (2003), titled "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Physical Review Letters 90 (15): 151301. William Lane Craig loves to quote it, misinterpreting it as he goes. In case you don't know who William Lane Craif is, let me tell you. He is a prominent apologist, who among other things, argues that genocide is AOK as long as God orders it. Note the name of his site: "Reasonable Faith"

Remez likes using acronyms. In post #98 he managed to string four of them together. I discovered that they are all favourite arguments of William Lane Craig. So, if you don't know an acronym and Google buries the one meaning Remez might be employing under lots of others he definitely does not, google for the acronym and add the search expression "William Lane Craig" or Reasonable (LOL) Faith.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

There does seem to be a bit of a tendency to use eternity as a get out of jail free card. Gargantuan, unfounded claims are made. The "no, my god is eternal" line is posited. The arguments do not come from their gods - since they do not exist - they come from extrapolating observations made in nature, placing the word 'must' between them and the requirement the believer has to invoke their selected deity as the causative being. One symptom of this is the continual inability of the believer to deal with the problems/flaws inherent in an eternal being by just sticking rigidly to the eternal line. Its a bit of a blinkered approach to something that is supposed to be all about "light". As a retrofit its cracks are apparent.

 

[bilby]

It may well be a theorem. But you still haven't told me what the fuck it is. 'The Paradigm Theorem' would be TPT, and the word paradigm almost always means 'the speaker is a wanker', in my experience.

If you refuse to make your case on the grounds that YOU know what you are talking about, and everyone else is beneath you, then I am under no obligation to give the slightest further credence to your crazy and unsupported nonsense.

You have not only failed to convince me of anything; you have failed to even present your case to me.

What a pointlessly arrogant waste of time your religion is.

A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin had a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters 90 (15): 151301 (2003), titled "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Physical Review Letters 90 (15): 151301.

I see. So if I don't recognise the initials of the author's surnames from a paper published fifteen years ago as a reference to a discussion by an apologist in which he misinterprets that paper to his own ends, then I am not qualified to comment?

That makes sense.

But only if you are really keen to avoid discussing the topic with anyone who doesn't start from the position that you are 100% correct.

It would have been a LOT quicker and easier for remez to have provided that reference than it was for him to try to belittle me for not recognising it from his TLA.

William Lane Craig loves to quote it, misinterpreting it as he goes. In case you don't know who William Lane Craif is, let me tell you. He is a prominent apologist, who among other things, argues that genocide is AOK as long as God orders it. Note the name of his site: "Reasonable Faith"

Remez likes using acronyms. In post #98 he managed to string four of them together. I discovered that they are all favourite arguments of William Lane Craig. So, if you don't know an acronym and Google buries the one meaning Remez might be employing under lots of others he definitely does not, google for the acronym and add the search expression "William Lane Craig" or Reasonable (LOL) Faith.

I have encountered WLC, but it became very obvious very quickly that the guy is a lying cunt who abuses logic in unjustified ways to try to prove the unprovable, because of a deep seated fear that his beliefs are founded in error. I dismissed his rambling nonsense as a waste of my time long ago.

I am not interested in WLC's opinion on anything; life is too short to waste on reading the opinions of people who have demonstrated a total disregard for intellectual honesty.

I care no more for the 'arguments' of WLC than for the detailed explanations from Flat Earthers of why their nonsense is correct; once someone refuses to drop a demonstrably false premise, their arguments cease to be worthy of consideration, and are just spam.

 

[remez]

Sean Carroll has commented on WL Craig's cherrypicking of quotes from Vilenkin. Which remez of course does in kind.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/09/25/let-the-universe-be-the-universe/

Carroll comments on the limitations of that theorem as well. And makes an important point about cosmology generally. Namely that it's so indefinite at this time that Vilenkin can have his pet conjecture to say "probably yes" about, and Carroll can simultaneously say "probably not" about the same thing, and both have unsound scientific and personal reasons for it. Because, he says, "none of us actually knows".

I'm very familar with his response. Like with most debates the real fun occurs in the reflections and continued responses following the debates. Did you check out WLC's reflections and responses?

 

[remez]

Its not the definition per se of eternity - its more that if a supernatural being IS eternal that it lacks the ability to create itself, thus not being all-powerful. It cannot do "everything" since the list of things it cannot do includes at least one item: the inability to bring itself into existence. Its not so much about the fact that it doesn't need to create itself within this definition but that it cannot bring itself into existence by virtue of its own eternity. There is another item to add to the list since if it is eternal it cannot destroy itself. Two things it is incapable of doing. Your god is not all-powerful and on that basis alone does not meet the definition of a being powerful enough to create The universe. We can create and destroy things but that's because we exist.

Easy fix.
Simple error of logic.
God being all powerful does not mean he can do what is logically impossible. That would be like saying Picasso isn't a great artist because he can't even draw a picture of a one ended stick. It’s not that God is not all powerful it's that your challenge is purely illogical.

There is no evidence that this god that you speak of exists/can be described since by the nature of the concept it necessarily defies reason and description.

Here is where you are precisely missing the epistemology. You can only assert that from some epistemological position akin to scientism.

For it is exactly by REASON that I argue that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe. You say I have no evidence. Yet my evidence is the same universe you are positing for your position. So how can you assert that I have no evidence? Please explain.

Show me your god. You can't. Provide evidence that your god exists. You can't. Provide evidence that your god is eternal. You can't. Provide evidence that your god created the universe. You can't.

I have provided evidence that my God exists. That is what we have been debating.

You can go on forever providing descriptions of your god and what it is capable of but you are hanging your coats on immaterial hooks so they are falling to the floor.

I’m hanging my coat on reason. Is reason material or immaterial?
Also….
The context of the thread was the Biblical Theistic God. If you don’t know what the context is, then it is you that does not know what they are debating. I’m not trying to defend your subjective warped version of God. Heck not even I believe in the purported god you don’t believe in.

Inference alone - reasoning yes but no evidence - is insufficient support.

Again you are espousing an indefensible epistemology. I have provided reason and evidence.
So as precisely as you can, explain how you know what you know. What counts as evidence and why does it count?

 

[remez]

To all the Folks

Remez likes using acronyms. In post #98 he managed to string four of them together. I discovered that they are all favourite arguments of William Lane Craig. So, if you don't know an acronym and Google buries the one meaning Remez might be employing under lots of others he definitely does not, google for the acronym and add the search expression "William Lane Craig" or Reasonable (LOL) Faith.

I have used these “common to context” abbreviations for years here on this thread. I was not trying to be obscure. As evidence I provided the exact context in that string of abbreviations as a reminder to abaddon just to be sure. He and I have been here many times before. So your insinuated effort that you “discovered” what they meant seems pretty lame since I provided that exact “common” context and told you where to find it. There was nothing there to hide.

As to the conflict with bilby over the BGV abbreviation, I felt he should have known about it, because he has been intensely involved in threads with me in the past where I've used it dozens of times. So I challenged his knowledge of the context, because it should have been apparent by now due to our history. Be careful what you assume about my intentions.




Now to the big issue at hand.

To all the Folks here challenging the BGV being presented as evidence for my position because it plausibly infers that the universe began to exist, a particular strong theme has presented itself here that I feel I need to address. I’m working on just how to address and present it to you all. In particular I’ll address the charge of my, and WLC’s, alleged misrepresentations of the BGV. It will take some thought and a little time to put it together. I'm particularly struggling with just how to format it, so I beg your patience. It is my intention to present it to you as soon as I can put it altogether. Sorry the events of this weekend will be challenging for my time. Have a great and safe weekend.

 

[Hermit]

Remez likes using acronyms. In post #98 he managed to string four of them together. I discovered that they are all favourite arguments of William Lane Craig. So, if you don't know an acronym and Google buries the one meaning Remez might be employing under lots of others he definitely does not, google for the acronym and add the search expression "William Lane Craig" or Reasonable (LOL) Faith.

I have used these “common to context” abbreviations for years here on this thread. I was not trying to be obscure.

Bilby asked what BVG stands for. A simple link to it, even if it just points to what creationwiki.org makes of it, would have been satisfactory. Instead you just kept beating about the bush.

...your insinuated effort that you “discovered” what they meant...

I did not. Learn to read.


By the way, I have repeatedly asked you a question. After each of your evasions I have reworded it. No answer - not even another evasion - to my latest attempt.

 

[humbleman]

If God created us for a purpose then we have a purpose

So you keep saying. Give me an example of a purpose we have, how you know that purpose was given to us by god and how you ascertain that you are not mistaken.

The only source we have to establish that a god created heavens and earth is writing papers, which probably come from oral teachings. The writings say that the biblical god indeed has a purpose with men: to be his sons (children)

You have a god who cares for you: cushee cushee poo poo, where is my picky picky cushee- cushee?

See? this god wants you as his child.

Then, he wants you to have the purpose of earning eternal life and be his picky picky cushee cushee forever.

You argue that there is no evidence, a single evidence that such being exists and that we have a purpose established by this being.

You are entitled to be skeptic, after all, it's true, you can't see him, you can't hear him, you can't touch him, you can't smell him, nothing, is not a physical entity... because the biblical narration implies that this god is not made in China and that his essence is unknown.

We end in the same place, always what the bible says but what the bible can't prove.

This is why the ones who believe in what the bible says don't need the "prove" argument. They don't need science to check if god exists. They only need faith.

You can't prove faith, you just have it.

And you know you have it when you believe what the bible says and obey what is written in it and have hope that one day your life will be different in a transformed earth living forever. That is faith.

Because you don't have that faith, there is no reason to be against the ones who have it.

 

[Hermit]

If God created us for a purpose then we have a purpose

So you keep saying. Give me an example of a purpose we have, how you know that purpose was given to us by god and how you ascertain that you are not mistaken.

The only source we have to establish that a god created heavens and earth is writing papers, which probably come from oral teachings.

Oral teachings, huh? How did those oral teachers get their information? Climbing up a mountain and receiving a couple of tablets' worth of shibboleths? Revelations, which I pointed out earlier cannot be distinguished from the "inner voices" of paranoid-schizophrenics?

We end in the same place, always what the bible says but what the bible can't prove.

I hope Remez will come up with something more interesting than this. The way he keeps avoiding to answer my question, though, I'm losing hope he ever will.

This is why the ones who believe in what the bible says don't need the "prove" argument.

I am not even asking for proof. All I want is, testable, credible evidence and a means of obtaining it in the real world rather than by revelations aka inner voices.

Because you don't have that faith, there is no reason to be against the ones who have it.

I am not against people of faith. I am opposed to the concept of faith itself, you know, the enemy of reason, belief without evidence, though in your case I am tempted to make an exception.

 

[Learner]

But BGV is not evidence that the universe began.

What BGV says is that for classical space time (that is: if we ignore quatum mechanics) there must be a beginning if the universe is always expanding.

Indeed , under (somewhat limited) observation -what is made of the data (stars moving away) seems to indicate a beginning.

Thus one (of many) ways to where your use of BGV fails is if the universe periodically shrinks and expands.

What is interesting to me (although I'm limited) is that the expanding universe then has "bounderies". Also within those boundries are quite a few black-holes. Curiously though : I'd wonder what various theories would be, when on the reverse direction as the universe is shrinking. Will all those black-holes now closer together have swallowed up all that physical matter ?

The idea then - matter has completely disapeared perhaps with this model . Or.. black-holes then merge into one unltimate black-hole or by other theories ; they conflict with each other / cancel out when combined etc..?

 

[bilby]

I have used these “common to context” abbreviations for years here on this thread.

No you haven't. This thread wasn't started 'years' ago. The first post was in May 2017. Less than eight months ago.

Your commitment to truth and accuracy is noted.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Easy fix.
Simple error of logic.
God being all powerful does not mean he can do what is logically impossible. That would be like saying Picasso isn't a great artist because he can't even draw a picture of a one ended stick. It’s not that God is not all powerful it's that your challenge is purely illogical.

Not quite so simple to "fix".
By your own words your god is not all powerful BECAUSE "he" cannot do what is logically impossible.
Cannot create or destroy itself.
We aren't talking about a human being so your comparison is not valid. But feel free to go into how your god operates or thinks if you wish.
The god you speak is not all powerful. Is it just "very" powerful?

Here is where you are precisely missing the epistemology. You can only assert that from some epistemological position akin to scientism.

For it is exactly by REASON that I argue that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe. You say I have no evidence. Yet my evidence is the same universe you are positing for your position. So how can you assert that I have no evidence? Please explain.

The universe is evidence for what? Itself. Nothing more than that. There is no direct evidence, there is an inference based on belief. It points to a convenient cause which apparently requires no evidence for its own existence merely by virtue of being eternal.

I have provided evidence that my God exists. That is what we have been debating.

Really? You have done what noone in history has managed to do? No, you haven't. What you have provided doesn't go beyond the universe being evidence for the universe itself.

I’m hanging my coat on reason. Is reason material or immaterial?
Also….
The context of the thread was the Biblical Theistic God. If you don’t know what the context is, then it is you that does not know what they are debating. I’m not trying to defend your subjective warped version of God. Heck not even I believe in the purported god you don’t believe in.

Reason - noun:
a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

Reason - verb:
think, understand, and form judgements logically.

I'm not sure it is actually possible to argue whether reason itself is either material or immaterial. What it relies on, however, I would say is material in the first instance. Can you "visualise" nothing?

Again you are espousing an indefensible epistemology. I have provided reason and evidence.
So as precisely as you can, explain how you know what you know. What counts as evidence and why does it count?

Details of the mechanism whereby everything required for the creation of the universe is brought into being by a pre-existing supernatural entity from an absolute vacuum. This assumes - for sake or argument - the pre-existence of an eternal creator and the requirement to create the universe.

 

[Learner]

Not quite so simple to "fix".
By your own words your god is not all powerful BECAUSE "he" cannot do what is logically impossible.
Cannot create or destroy itself.
We aren't talking about a human being so your comparison is not valid. But feel free to go into how your god operates or thinks if you wish.
The god you speak is not all powerful. Is it just "very" powerful?

As opposed to who else? By concept: A one-of-a-kind, ultimately above all else, i.e. All powerful.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Not quite so simple to "fix".
By your own words your god is not all powerful BECAUSE "he" cannot do what is logically impossible.
Cannot create or destroy itself.
We aren't talking about a human being so your comparison is not valid. But feel free to go into how your god operates or thinks if you wish.
The god you speak is not all powerful. Is it just "very" powerful?

As opposed to who else? By concept: A one-of-a-kind, ultimately above all else, i.e. All powerful.

Um, no, I don't think that the god being discussed is all powerful for the reasons already set out. But it isn't observable in any case.
Absence of observable evidence (not merely inferred through reflection) coupled with the concept of etrnity doesn't automatically support a supernatural entity being the creator of the universe.
There is the challenge that the god you posit has never made it beyond the level of concept.

 

[Learner]

Um, no, I don't think that the god being discussed is all powerful for the reasons already set out. But it isn't observable in any case.

Reasons set out by yourself (not unique to you) that seems to suggests that there are specific rules to measure by mans "logic" derived only so-far from his aquired "naturalistic" experience - regardless of the more unknowns to yet discover let alone understand the whole variety of sub-sub-level physics and forces.

Its not really a real logical problem for theists imo (for lack of better wording).

Absence of observable evidence (not merely inferred through reflection) coupled with the concept of etrnity doesn't automatically support a supernatural entity being the creator of the universe.
There is the challenge that the god you posit has never made it beyond the level of concept.

I took it as your concept in your previous quote as to what you "thought" an entity could or could not be. (possibly wrong word I used)

 

[Juma]

But BGV is not evidence that the universe began.

What BGV says is that for classical space time (that is: if we ignore quatum mechanics) there must be a beginning if the universe is always expanding.

Indeed , under (somewhat limited) observation -what is made of the data (stars moving away) seems to indicate a beginning.

Thus one (of many) ways to where your use of BGV fails is if the universe periodically shrinks and expands.

What is interesting to me (although I'm limited) is that the expanding universe then has "bounderies".

no it doesnt. wether it expands/contracts doesnt say anything about wether it is bounded.

 

[humbleman]

Oral teachings, huh? How did those oral teachers get their information? Climbing up a mountain and receiving a couple of tablets' worth of shibboleths? Revelations, which I pointed out earlier cannot be distinguished from the "inner voices" of paranoid-schizophrenics?

You just avoid sleeping for a few days and you might start "hearing sounds like voices".

However, those voices from prevented sleep won't tell you laws and statutes.

Show me paranoid-schizophrenics telling you wise laws from the voices they say they have heard.

I hope Remez will come up with something more interesting than this. The way he keeps avoiding to answer my question, though, I'm losing hope he ever will.

You are discussing here with me, with daddy.

Don't escape now, tell me more about your problematic against religion.

I am not even asking for proof. All I want is, testable, credible evidence and a means of obtaining it in the real world rather than by revelations aka inner voices.

Oh... poor thing... Testable, credible evidence it's proof!

I am not against people of faith. I am opposed to the concept of faith itself, you know, the enemy of reason, belief without evidence, though in your case I am tempted to make an exception. View attachment 14200

You better check that the one who said: "reason is the enemy of faith" was a religious person: Martin Luther.

No one before him implied such discrepancy between both concepts.

After Luther, there are lots of sayings, some of them funny.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason" - Benjamin Franklin

"I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". – Douglas Adams

"Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions". – Frater Ravus (took from Yahoo answers, lol)

From another "Yahoo answer"

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121012023321AA6OTSH

Best Answer: Faith is part and parcel to reason. People waiting for a bus at a bus stop have faith that the bus is going to come. They can't know that the bus is going to come. Just because it came yesterday is no guarantee it will come today. Just because the bus schedule says it will come today is no guarantee that it will come. Yet they wait at the bus stop for a bus with no guarantee that one will come. Why? Because it is reasonable. It is reasonable to believe in God too. He spoke directly to Moses. He sent many prophets, angels, and even his son. People must have faith in a lot of things. They have faith in their teachers. They have faith in their doctor, dentist, auto mechanic, etc. No one alive today has ever met Abraham Lincoln. If I demanded proof that Abraham Lincoln existed, do you think I could get it? It's impossible. I must take his existence on faith. Does a birth certificate prove anything? NO. It merely certifies. Any document could be forged. A man in control of the U.S. Treasury could certainly have a document forged that could fool any expert. But we must have faith that a certificate is not forged. Why? Because it is reasonable.

Additional Details:
"We have been searching for God(s) for thousands of years, and have not uncovered a shred of evidence to support this 'faith'."

You and who else have been searching for thousands of years? I find that hard to believe that you have even lived that long. Many people have found God. I am sorry about your luck. Many scientists will fail to replicate an experiment and it turns out they made an error and did not replicate the process exactly. A negative result is not any proof. But how many times is an experiment successfully replicated before the scientific community accepts it as fact? Certainly less than millions. Millions of people have a personal relationship with God. They have succeeded where you have failed. Your failure or your ignorance is not any indication that God does not exist. The testimony of millions of people, or even a few, is enough to support faith in God.

With regard to forged documents, what I said does apply to scripture. We must have faith because we cannot know for certain, but it really doesn't seem reasonable to believe that thousands of people all conspired to invent Jesus over 2000 years ago when the population was much smaller than today....

A long answer, but worthy to read. If not 100% "proof" the dude has good arguments for discussion.

Point is that faith and reason, at the end of the day, are not enemies.

 

[Hermit]

You just avoid sleeping for a few days and you might start "hearing sounds like voices".

However, those voices from prevented sleep won't tell you laws and statutes.

Show me paranoid-schizophrenics telling you wise laws from the voices they say they have heard.

There's an expression for what you've done here: begging the question.

Testable, credible evidence it's proof!

Going by the dictionary it is. Learn some epistemology. You'll find that only the positivists held that primitive view of proof, and they have long gone.

the one who said: "reason is the enemy of faith" was a religious person: Martin Luther.

And it still holds, especially among fundamentalists.