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

[remez]

I always liked Sagan's take, that if the creator needs no creator why does a cosmos?

Because the cosmos is not eternal. Follow the evidence and reason.

The cosmos is pretty awesome,

Yes it is.....................

why can't it be a creator?

It began to exist. What was it's cause?

 

[blastula]

more empty assertionzzzzzzz.

 

[bilby]

Because the cosmos is not eternal. Follow the evidence and reason.



Yes it is.....................

why can't it be a creator?

It began to exist. What was it's cause?

How do you know that the cosmos is not eternal?

We know that it existed at the Planck time; and we know that we cannot say for sure what happened before that time. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is eternal. Whether you consider 'the cosmos' also to be eternal is just down to your definition of 'cosmos'.

It's equally reasonable to assume that the universe began shortly before the Planck time. We simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct.

 

[Gila Guerilla]

Because the cosmos is not eternal. Follow the evidence and reason.

. . .

It began to exist. What was it's cause?

more empty assertionzzzzzzz.

Blastula is right, there a mere assertion there, Remez. You see, the cosmos may not have begun to exist - it may have always existed.
It seems that our universe began to exist in its present form. It may be an offshoot of a previously existing cosmos,
(cosmos = all that there is; universe ~= all that there is). The cause may have been purely natural and physical, (inc. chemical),
by way of an eternally pre-existing cosmos, (and there is no reason to disclude the possibility of such an eternally existing state of affairs).

If you disagree, then you need to do the relevant research.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Because the cosmos is not eternal. Follow the evidence and reason.



Yes it is.....................

why can't it be a creator?

It began to exist. What was it's cause?

How do you know that the cosmos is not eternal?

We know that it existed at the Planck time; and we know that we cannot say for sure what happened before that time. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is eternal. Whether you consider 'the cosmos' also to be eternal is just down to your definition of 'cosmos'.

It's equally reasonable to assume that the universe began shortly before the Planck time. We simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct.

No part of the cosmos can be made to vanish. Everything must be accounted for. Somethingness is therefore the default setting. It's a conclusion based on observation and every experiment ever performed.

Whenever someone wants to pony up one of their magical pretend creators I'll be listening. Otherwise such claims are just more unverifiable dogmatic religious blather, comforting for many, no doubt.

 

[James Brown]

It began to exist. What was it's cause?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The kalam argument is an altered form of the cosmological argument. It is intended to circumvent the infinite regress problem contained within the traditional cosmological argument by altering the premises. The arguments dates back to the Islamic apologist al-Ghāzāli (1058-1111)

<snip>

The wording of Kalam is arguably a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. As Richard Dawkins put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice...

 

[bilby]

How do you know that the cosmos is not eternal?

We know that it existed at the Planck time; and we know that we cannot say for sure what happened before that time. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is eternal. Whether you consider 'the cosmos' also to be eternal is just down to your definition of 'cosmos'.

It's equally reasonable to assume that the universe began shortly before the Planck time. We simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct.

No part of the cosmos can be made to vanish. Everything must be accounted for. Somethingness is therefore the default setting. It's a conclusion based on observation and every experiment ever performed.

Whenever someone wants to pony up one of their magical pretend creators I'll be listening. Otherwise such claims are just more unverifiable dogmatic religious blather, comforting for many, no doubt.

We cannot know for sure whether the first law of thermodynamics applies before the Planck time; but as it applies for all time thereafter, I lean towards the assumption that it does, and that therefore the mass-energy of our universe has always existed.

It's just an assumption though; I would drop it in an instant if presented with a shred of contrary evidence.

 

[blastula]

The total energy can be zero though.

 

[bilby]

The total energy can be zero though.

Sure, it could be.

The evidence we have suggests that it's not though - there's a lot of matter we can see, and a lot of non-matter energy too. Which might mean that the total energy of the system is non-zero; or that it is zero, but we can't see a large fraction of the negative parts. There's currently no way to tell which.

 

[Kharakov]

The total energy can be zero though.

Sure, it could be.

The evidence we have suggests that it's not though - there's a lot of matter we can see, and a lot of non-matter energy too. Which might mean that the total energy of the system is non-zero; or that it is zero, but we can't see a large fraction of the negative parts. There's currently no way to tell which.

Woo can also divide the finite energy of the system with 0 energy and get infinite, free energy.

Weight, that's not how it works.

 

[remez]

more empty assertionzzzzzzz.

Your statement itself is an empty assertion to me. So properly I need to ask what do you mean by that? Remember an assertion is a statement about saying. An assumption is an statement about thinking. My assertion was not an assumption. My assertion was an inference that the universe began to exist based on the assumption of the SBBM.

 

[remez]

Because the cosmos is not eternal. Follow the evidence and reason.



Yes it is.....................

why can't it be a creator?

It began to exist. What was it's cause?

How do you know that the cosmos is not eternal?

We know that it existed at the Planck time; and we know that we cannot say for sure what happened before that time. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is eternal. Whether you consider 'the cosmos' also to be eternal is just down to your definition of 'cosmos'.

It's equally reasonable to assume that the universe began shortly before the Planck time. We simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct.

parsed

We know that it existed at the Planck time; and we know that we cannot say for sure what happened before that time.

Absolute certainty is not the standard criterion of knowledge. To suggest that it is would be self-defeating. Think about it. My reply to joedad was reasoning to best inference that the universe began.

It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is eternal.

We're way past assumption here. We're dealing with the inference to the best explanation. The evidence we have thus far renders your inference far less plausible.

It's equally reasonable to assume that the universe began shortly before the Planck time. We simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct.

We are beyond simple coin flipping at assumptions here. Which is the more reasonable inference.......the universe began to exist or the universe is past eternal?

Assuming SBBM cosmology, I infer that the universe began to exist.
Give me a more plausible inference.

 

[remez]

Because the cosmos is not eternal. Follow the evidence and reason.

. . .

It began to exist. What was it's cause?

more empty assertionzzzzzzz.

Blastula is right, there a mere assertion there, Remez. You see, the cosmos may not have begun to exist - it may have always existed.
It seems that our universe began to exist in its present form. It may be an offshoot of a previously existing cosmos,
(cosmos = all that there is; universe ~= all that there is). The cause may have been purely natural and physical, (inc. chemical),
by way of an eternally pre-existing cosmos, (and there is no reason to disclude the possibility of such an eternally existing state of affairs).

If you disagree, then you need to do the relevant research.

Parsed

Remez. You see, the cosmos may not have begun to exist - it may have always existed.

Lets examine your assertion and assumption. Ok what is your evidence for this assertion? Just the mere asstertion does not make it the better inference.

It seems that our universe began to exist in its present form.

It certainly does. Therefore the best inference from all the evidence we have now is the universe began to exist.

Before we go any further lets make clear how I'm reasoning that "began to exist". The universe(all space, matter, time and energy) began to exist means....
it began to exist from something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial........
because "began to exist" logically means THAT which began to exist did not exist prior to ITS beginning.

It may be an offshoot of a previously existing cosmos,

My assertion to that is.................
that your assertion is some nameless model standing opposed to the best inference that universe began to exist. You are asserting some model that assumes there was space before space, time before time, matter before matter. So how is your model a better inference?

There exists no viable model that extends space, matter, time or energy eternally into the past. I'm willing to examine any model you put forth in comparison to mine.

(cosmos = all that there is; universe ~= all that there is).

This slight of definition conveniently renders the biblical Creator nonexistent or transforms him into a pantheistic god. Neither option properly addresses the biblical Creator that transcends the universe. I assert that is an immature way to run away from the debate, because he can't exist by your volitional definition. "He just can't exist because I subjectively define it that way." Even in a thread ironically created to question his existence. So if he can't exist solely by your volitional definition then why start threads or participate in threads questioning or mocking his existence?

The cause may have been purely natural and physical, (inc. chemical),
by way of an eternally pre-existing cosmos,

Again we have no viable model that can achieve your assertion. How could universe/nature exist before it began?

(and there is no reason to disclude the possibility of such an eternally existing state of affairs).

Wild possibilities do not displace the inference of the best explanation simply because you can assert one.

If you disagree, then you need to do the relevant research.

I call your bluff. Again I'm ready. Bring me a BETTER model, defend it and change my mind. For further clarifacation, I'm specifically asking you for a viable model that infers the universe is past eternal.

 

[remez]

How do you know that the cosmos is not eternal?

We know that it existed at the Planck time; and we know that we cannot say for sure what happened before that time. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is eternal. Whether you consider 'the cosmos' also to be eternal is just down to your definition of 'cosmos'.

It's equally reasonable to assume that the universe began shortly before the Planck time. We simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct.

No part of the cosmos can be made to vanish. Everything must be accounted for. Somethingness is therefore the default setting. It's a conclusion based on observation and every experiment ever performed.

Whenever someone wants to pony up one of their magical pretend creators I'll be listening. Otherwise such claims are just more unverifiable dogmatic religious blather, comforting for many, no doubt.

parsed.....

Everything must be accounted for.

Agreed. Everything has an explanation for its existence, either in necessity of its own nature or some external cause.

Somethingness is therefore the default setting.

If by that you mean it just has to have a natural cause then I would have to reasonably disagree. In context my inference was that nature began to exist. Which means it is not necessary in its own existence and therefore has an enternal cause/explanation. How do you account for nature itself?

It's a conclusion based on observation and every experiment ever performed.

I hear you. Observation and experiment are critical to knowledge. But observation and experiment rightfully assume the existence of nature. Here we are trying to account for nature itself, a nature that began to exist. So you are methodoligically assuming some form of naturalism can provide the explanation and logically that can not be the case. So we are forced to forensically reason beyond just observation and experiment or simply bury our heads in the sand and assert its simply better to say IDK. And that approach is IMO .... is as Dawkins would put it....intellectually lazy.

Whenever someone wants to pony up one of their magical pretend creators I'll be listening. Otherwise such claims are just more unverifiable dogmatic religious blather, comforting for many, no doubt.

I was just answering your question.

 

[remez]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument



<snip>

The wording of Kalam is arguably a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. As Richard Dawkins put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice...

Ok, since you brought it up. WLC has addressed this baseless counter in just about every debate in reference to the KCA. Just go and snip in his reponse and tell me where you think he is wrong.

 

[Juma]

How do you know that the cosmos is not eternal?

We know that it existed at the Planck time; and we know that we cannot say for sure what happened before that time. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is eternal. Whether you consider 'the cosmos' also to be eternal is just down to your definition of 'cosmos'.

It's equally reasonable to assume that the universe began shortly before the Planck time. We simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct.

parsed

We know that it existed at the Planck time; and we know that we cannot say for sure what happened before that time.

Absolute certainty is not the standard criterion of knowledge. To suggest that it is would be self-defeating. Think about it. My reply to joedad was reasoning to best inference that the universe began.

It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is eternal.

We're way past assumption here. We're dealing with the inference to the best explanation. The evidence we have thus far renders your inference far less plausible.

It's equally reasonable to assume that the universe began shortly before the Planck time. We simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct.

We are beyond simple coin flipping at assumptions here. Which is the more reasonable inference.......the universe began to exist or the universe is past eternal?

Assuming SBBM cosmology, I infer that the universe began to exist.
Give me a more plausible inference.

what part of ”we simply do not have any theoretical basis for choosing which of these assumptions is correct” didnt you understand?

- - - Updated - - -

The Kalam Cosmological Argument



<snip>

The wording of Kalam is arguably a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. As Richard Dawkins put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice...

Ok, since you brought it up. WLC has addressed this baseless counter in just about every debate in reference to the KCA. Just go and snip in his reponse and tell me where you think he is wrong.

that is your job. if you’re not up to it: STFU.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Ok, since you brought it up. WLC has addressed this baseless counter in just about every debate in reference to the KCA. Just go and snip in his reponse and tell me where you think he is wrong.

A variation on the unmoved mover? What does this do beyond make obscure the potential origin of the universe? If what amounts to an obscure explanation is being proposed how can it be meaningfully discussed? Maybe the universe that we exist as a part of is both finite and infinite (being the most recent of a never-ending string of various "forms")

 

[Hermit]

Before we go any further lets make clear how I'm reasoning that "began to exist". The universe(all space, matter, time and energy) began to exist means....
it began to exist from something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial........
because "began to exist" logically means THAT which began to exist did not exist prior to ITS beginning.

OK, let's accept for the sake of the argument that the universe(all space, matter, time and energy) began to exist from something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial. So we are assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator. What now? Does it enable us to understand the universe any better? Have we made progress in solving the mystery of how the universe came about by invoking a mysterious creator? Does it lead us to the discovery of the meaning of life?

 

[remez]

Ok, since you brought it up. WLC has addressed this baseless counter in just about every debate in reference to the KCA. Just go and snip in his reponse and tell me where you think he is wrong.

A variation on the unmoved mover? What does this do beyond make obscure the potential origin of the universe? If what amounts to an obscure explanation is being proposed how can it be meaningfully discussed? Maybe the universe that we exist as a part of is both finite and infinite (being the most recent of a never-ending string of various "forms")

parsed.....

A variation on the unmoved mover?

Very good.

What does this do beyond make obscure the potential origin of the universe?

It purposely addressed the context of joedad's question in post 40.

If what amounts to an obscure explanation is being proposed how can it be meaningfully discussed?

"....how can it be meaningfully discussed." I could not follow precisely the context of your pronoun "it".
How can what be meaningfully discussed?

Maybe the universe that we exist as a part of is both finite and infinite (being the most recent of a never-ending string of various "forms")

Seriously show me a viable cosmological model.

 

[remez]

Before we go any further lets make clear how I'm reasoning that "began to exist". The universe(all space, matter, time and energy) began to exist means....
it began to exist from something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial........
because "began to exist" logically means THAT which began to exist did not exist prior to ITS beginning.

OK, let's accept for the sake of the argument that the universe(all space, matter, time and energy) began to exist from something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial. So we are assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator. What now? Does it enable us to understand the universe any better? Have we made progress in solving the mystery of how the universe came about by invoking a mysterious creator? Does it lead us to the discovery of the meaning of life?

parsed.....

OK, let's accept for the sake of the argument that the universe(all space, matter, time and energy) began to exist from something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial. So we are assuming the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator.

OK that is now the context for sake of argument. For this post.

What now?

If you take the context seriously then you must deal with the serious implications that God exists. Origins? meaning? morality? and destiny?

Does it enable us to understand the universe any better?

Depends on what you are trying to understand.

Have we made progress in solving the mystery of how the universe came about by invoking a mysterious creator?

Why would you assert that knowing the "who" implies knowing the "how"? That would be a categorical fallacy. You are conflating two different levels of explanation. Mechanism and agency. I guess there are some mechanicstic insights to be gained by knowing the agency but to assert that we can gain an complete understanding of mechanism by knowing the agency does not seem rational.

Does it lead us to the discovery of the meaning of life?

Good question. Given for sake of argument that God exists. Wouldn't there now be an objective meaning to life?