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

[Hermit]

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?

That is exactly what I want you to explicate with the question "What now?"

Does it enable us to understand the universe any better?

Depends on what you are trying to understand.

Well, the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator takes care of abiogenesis, doesn't it? So what is left we don't know about the universe? There are lots of holes in our scientific body of knowledge, I suppose. A grand unifying theory, if one is possible, would be a great step forward in our understanding.

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.

You misread. I did not assert that knowing the "who" implies knowing the "how". I asked if knowing "who" helps us with the "how".

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?

You just cast my question in other words. If your answer is "yes", please go ahead and explain how the existence of god leads to an objective meaning to life.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Folks,

The cosmos is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too complicated and mysterious for it to just happen to be. We need to have an explanation for its being by positing something infinitely more complicated and mysterious and incomprehensible, and stupendous and inexplicable and monumental and collosal and inaccessible and immaterial and magical.

And by the way, did I mention that we don't have to account for that explanation in any way whatsoever! Genius!

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Remez, why does life "need" an objective which is something beyond/other than its own persistence? The continuing goal of a given population's ability to evade extinction? If a god exists - or doesn't exist - why would that make an objective or the "meaning" of life any clearer? In my experience the "answer" "god" generates one more question than it answers. It no doubt gives some a buffer within which they can feel protected from the apparent clinical harshness/indifference of the universe. Can you think of a single event which has increased the probability of a god existing or not existing or has it always - will it always - remain an unknown point of an unknown scale?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Remez, why does life "need" an objective which is something beyond/other than its own persistence? The continuing goal of a given population's ability to evade extinction? If a god exists - or doesn't exist - why would that make an objective or the "meaning" of life any clearer? In my experience the "answer" "god" generates one more question than it answers. It no doubt gives some a buffer within which they can feel protected from the apparent clinical harshness/indifference of the universe. Can you think of a single event which has increased the probability of a god existing or not existing or has it always - will it always - remain an unknown point of an unknown scale?

Can I take a crack at an answer? It would be because I have to explain this emotion I have.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Remez, why does life "need" an objective which is something beyond/other than its own persistence? The continuing goal of a given population's ability to evade extinction? If a god exists - or doesn't exist - why would that make an objective or the "meaning" of life any clearer? In my experience the "answer" "god" generates one more question than it answers. It no doubt gives some a buffer within which they can feel protected from the apparent clinical harshness/indifference of the universe. Can you think of a single event which has increased the probability of a god existing or not existing or has it always - will it always - remain an unknown point of an unknown scale?

Can I take a crack at an answer? It would be because I have to explain this emotion I have.

Shoot. ETA: Ah, was that it? In that alone there could be an eternity. Could that change an unknown probability?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Remez, why does life "need" an objective which is something beyond/other than its own persistence? The continuing goal of a given population's ability to evade extinction? If a god exists - or doesn't exist - why would that make an objective or the "meaning" of life any clearer? In my experience the "answer" "god" generates one more question than it answers. It no doubt gives some a buffer within which they can feel protected from the apparent clinical harshness/indifference of the universe. Can you think of a single event which has increased the probability of a god existing or not existing or has it always - will it always - remain an unknown point of an unknown scale?

Can I take a crack at an answer? It would be because I have to explain this emotion I have.

Shoot. ETA: Ah, was that it? In that alone there could be an eternity. Could that change an unknown probability?

I don't think people who look at a flower or a baby and explain it with an unexplainable god are thinking about things like unknown probabilities and have any concept of infinite time. They're thinking with their feelings, not an intellect.

We are Sagan's immiscible amalgam of what we feel and what we know. It can be a struggle or just another journey. Perhaps that is the genesis of religion and magic. The intellectual journey becomes a pseudo-intellectual journey replete with invented creatures and forces that satisfy the emotion but do not advance the intellect.

One can have both emotion and intellect. I think that's healthy. When kids outgrow tooth fairies I think that's what is happening.

 

[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.

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.

That it is past eternal.

There is nothing in the SBBM that makes your inference more reasonable than mine. Either the universe began to exist at the Big Bang; or the Big Bang was caused by an earlier state of the universe.

Not only do we not know which occurred; We have no basis for a claim that one is a better idea, inference or assumption than the other (your personal preference notwithstanding).

I can see why you WANT the universe to have started, because you think that if it did, your beliefs are better supported. But that's not a reason for anyone other than you to accept without evidence that it did.

As I have said, I consider the first law of thermodynamics as justification for my inclination the other way; but I am aware that this is insufficient to make a firm determination.

Your entire position appear to me to be an argument from lack of humility.

 

[bilby]

I would be interested in an analysis of how "a spaceless, timeless and immaterial entity" differs from "nothing".

I can't spot any difference. Can anyone help?

 

[Kharakov]

I would be interested in an analysis of how "a spaceless, timeless and immaterial entity" differs from "nothing".

I can't spot any difference. Can anyone help?

Methinks you found yourself a duelist.

 

[bilby]

I would be interested in an analysis of how "a spaceless, timeless and immaterial entity" differs from "nothing".

I can't spot any difference. Can anyone help?

Methinks you found yourself a duelist.

Do I get to choose the weapons?

 

[James Brown]

I would be interested in an analysis of how "a spaceless, timeless and immaterial entity" differs from "nothing".

I can't spot any difference. Can anyone help?

...if God is described solely in terms of negation, it is impossible to distinguish him from non-existence—“any Being which had to be characterized entirely in negations would, surely, not be discernible from no Being at all.” God is not matter; neither is non-existence. God does not have limitations; neither does non-existence. God is not visible; neither is non-existence. God does not change; neither does non-existence. God cannot be described; neither can non-existence. And so on down the list of negative predicates. If the theist wishes to distinguish his belief in God from the belief in nothing at all, he must give some positive substance to the concept of God.

--Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith

 

[Learner]

I would be interested in an analysis of how "a spaceless, timeless and immaterial entity" differs from "nothing".

I can't spot any difference. Can anyone help?

...if God is described solely in terms of negation, it is impossible to distinguish him from non-existence—“any Being which had to be characterized entirely in negations would, surely, not be discernible from no Being at all.” God is not matter; neither is non-existence. God does not have limitations; neither does non-existence. God is not visible; neither is non-existence. God does not change; neither does non-existence. God cannot be described; neither can non-existence. And so on down the list of negative predicates. If the theist wishes to distinguish his belief in God from the belief in nothing at all, he must give some positive substance to the concept of God.

--Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith

The case against God - IF described soley in terms of negation. I suppose it'll have to do for now, if thats all there is against.

 

[Learner]

That it is past eternal.

There is nothing in the SBBM that makes your inference more reasonable than mine. Either the universe began to exist at the Big Bang; or the Big Bang was caused by an earlier state of the universe.

Here at least you seem to acknowledge the Big Bang is the beginning at least for the physical universe (if thats what you mean). And there is also a cause.

Not only do we not know which occurred; We have no basis for a claim that one is a better idea, inference or assumption than the other (your personal preference notwithstanding).

Both ideas as above I agree as a beginning with a cause.

I can see why you WANT the universe to have started, because you think that if it did, your beliefs are better supported. But that's not a reason for anyone other than you to accept without evidence that it did.

I would expect there are people from non-religious backgrounds that later believed - after one with keen curiousity would research and by inference make of what he or she comes across with ... the knowledge thats widely available.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The case against God - IF described soley in terms of negation. I suppose it'll have to do for now, if thats all there is against.

Learner, do you understand what 'described soley in terms of negation' means?

 

[bilby]

Here at least you seem to acknowledge the Big Bang is the beginning at least for the physical universe (if thats what you mean).

No, that's not what I mean. I am very explicitly saying that it is not known whether or not the Big Bang is the beginning.

And there is also a cause.

If the Big Bang is not the beginning, then it's hardly a surprise that there is a cause for the Big Bang. If the universe is past eternal, then no cause is necessary nor possible.

Both ideas as above I agree as a beginning with a cause.

It's hardly an 'agreement', when you have completely failed to comprehend what I said.

I can see why you WANT the universe to have started, because you think that if it did, your beliefs are better supported. But that's not a reason for anyone other than you to accept without evidence that it did.

I would expect there are people from non-religious backgrounds that later believed - after one with keen curiousity would research and by inference make of what he or she comes across with ... the knowledge thats widely available.

So we agree that you are a fish.

That's good to know. (Or is that not what you are saying at all?).

 

[DBT]

When they say "God is real to me" isn't that what that means?

It is Faith in action....

"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

 

[remez]

That is exactly what I want you to explicate with the question "What now?"

Remember the context is that God exists. So…What now?

I’m not sure what you are asking. The context is too open. Are you asking how does that effect our understanding of the universe? Are you asking how you should then live your life? Are you suggesting that knowing he exists does not change anything? Etc. Please clarify?

Does it enable us to understand the universe any better?

Depends on what you are trying to understand.

Well, the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial creator takes care of abiogenesis, doesn't it? So what is left we don't know about the universe? There are lots of holes in our scientific body of knowledge, I suppose. A grand unifying theory, if one is possible, would be a great step forward in our understanding.

Again it depends what you are trying to understand.
Origin vs operational science.
Who is only part of the ”who, what, when, where, how,” mysteries.

Knowing he exists certainly helps us understand some origin issues of agency. Life. Information. Universe, space, time, matter energy. Fine tuning. Physical laws that govern his creation. Knowing he exists certainly impacts our understanding of morality, logic meaning, theology, philosophy, epistemology, etc

However, knowing he exists does not necessarily tell us how he did it or how his creation operates. But it would be a categorical fallacy to believe that it should in this sector of understanding. For example. Is it reasonable to assume that since we know that Frank Whittle is the agency of the turbojet engine that we would by that fact alone know how the turbojet engine works or why he created it? Your questions seem to be narrowly focused towards this fallacy.

Knowing he exists certainly helps us understand WHY is the universe so comprehendible? It would certainly clarify mind-body problem.

“What’s left?”

Meaning of life? Destiny? Revelation? How should I live?
How his creation works, why it works, what was its purpose? etc.

I have good reasons to believe God exists and I certainly possess a great many mysteries I strive to understand. So if you are possibly trying to infer that believing God exists leaves nothing left to understand then you are in error, for example I’m trying to understand what you are getting at here.

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 mechanistic 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.

You misread. I did not assert that knowing the "who" implies knowing the "how". I asked if knowing "who" helps us with the "how".

Reread the last sentence.

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?

You just cast my question in other words. If your answer is "yes", please go ahead and explain how the existence of god leads to an objective meaning to life.

Remember the context….God the creator exists.
My response directly indicated that God’s purpose would be our objective meaning of life by overt default. How could there be another if we were created by God?

 

[remez]

Post 54… where we left off….

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 eternal 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 methodologically assuming some form of naturalism can provide the explanation and logically that cannot 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 it’s simply better to say IDK. And that approach 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.

Your response …………..

Folks,

The cosmos is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too complicated and mysterious for it to just happen to be. We need to have an explanation for its being by positing something infinitely more complicated and mysterious and incomprehensible, and stupendous and inexplicable and monumental and collosal and inaccessible and immaterial and magical.

And by the way, did I mention that we don't have to account for that explanation in any way whatsoever! Genius!

Clearly you missed it again and reverted back to your same old intellectually lazy MO of mocking of a strawman because you couldn’t hang in there.

 

[remez]

Remez, why does life "need" an objective which is something beyond/other than its own persistence? The continuing goal of a given population's ability to evade extinction? If a god exists - or doesn't exist - why would that make an objective or the "meaning" of life any clearer? In my experience the "answer" "god" generates one more question than it answers. It no doubt gives some a buffer within which they can feel protected from the apparent clinical harshness/indifference of the universe. Can you think of a single event which has increased the probability of a god existing or not existing or has it always - will it always - remain an unknown point of an unknown scale?

Where did that come from? If that was in reference to my reply to Hermit, then your question does not rationally reflect the context that Hermit laid out.

This was where WE left off…………….

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.

Jason is it Rational to abandon your burden of proof here and start raising non sequiturs from elsewhere?
Be fair.
I’m still waiting for a viable cosmological model that infers that the universe is both finite and eternal.
Your engagement here seems insincere.

 

[remez]

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.

Well ……..?

That it is past eternal.

That inference is based on what?

There is nothing in the SBBM that makes your inference more reasonable than mine. Either the universe began to exist at the Big Bang; or the Big Bang was caused by an earlier state of the universe.

If you want to jump off the train of reason by claiming that something could exist before it began to exist then be my guest.

I can see why you WANT the universe to have started, because you think that if it did, your beliefs are better supported. But that's not a reason for anyone other than you to accept without evidence that it did.

My position is one of reason supported by the EVIDENCE of the SBBM. Your position is the one of want, standing opposed to reason and wanting of evidence.

As I have said, I consider the first law of thermodynamics as justification for my inclination the other way; but I am aware that this is insufficient to make a firm determination.

We've discussed this before. The law is one that undeniably describes a phenomenon of the universe, but could not reasonably exist without this universe. It describes what is, it can’t prescribe what is. Hence it provides no evidence to infer an eternal past.

Your entire position appear to me to be an argument from lack of humility.

And yet you so humbly think you are right about that.
My how the tables have turned.

I have offered reasoned position supported by evidence.
You provide wanted speculation without any evidence that actually stands opposed to reason itself.
Wow.