How does God do anything?

[James Brown]

The answer God is a possible explanation to the question why a universe that allowed life came to exist

Sorry Drew. God is an answer to the question “why did a universe come to exist”, not an explanation of anything at all.

"Daddy, how did the magician pull the rabbit out of his hat?"

"By magic, son."

Do you have a non-magical explanation for how the universe came to be?

No. But them I'm not a cosmologist.

By the same token, I don't know what's causing the noises in my attic, but I don't believe that it's ghosts.

There are plenty of non-ghost explanations for noises in the attic. The cause of the universe if discovered will be called natural...I doubt it will be anything like what we call natural now.

Yes, exactly. There are plenty of natural explanations for attic noises. Not knowing what they are does not give someone else a blank check to conclude that they must be caused by a supernatural force. The evidence against such is overwhelming that it would be foolish to leap to it as a first conclusion.

As for the universe's origins, one person says, "I don't know." Another person says, "I don't know either, therefore it was God." See the difference?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you are saying that a singularity isn't anything? Or are you saying that the singularity began to exist too? Or what? Common sense says that if the universe arose from a singularity then it existed as a singularity before it became what we see today.

Where does the magic come in?

Magic pretty much describes a singularity...the real question is how do we make the magic disappear?

By 'magic,' here, you appear to mean 'beyond our understanding?'
So, we strive to understand the math, the process, the forces involved. Reduce the mystery, remove the 'magic.'
We do not just label parts of the graph "Here Thrre Be Dragons" or "Goddidit." That's not helping understand anything, it's just putting a blankie over the mystery. Namedropping as an excuse to pretend mystery isn't mysterious.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The irony is I'm not invoking magic. A transcendent being knowing how to cause a real universe to exist is no more magical than scientists causing a virtual universe to exist.

That is ironic considering the original post of this thread.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A transcendent being knowing how to cause a real universe to exist is no more magical than scientists causing a virtual universe to exist.

Are people working at CERN transcendent beings? I mean they've pretty much made exceeding limits their professions. What about a service member that receives the congressional medal of honor or dies in combat? Transcendent beings?

So I can understand your use of this phrase, can you give me examples of beings that are not transcendent?

 

[Drew2008]

The fact that every single phenomenon that has ever been subjected to scientific scrutiny has either been found to be of either natural or unknown causes,

We label anything that we observe to occur as natural. There is no other condition. If all people were able to briefly levitate off the floor for a few feet and land again even if there was no explanation for the ability it would of course be labeled natural. What would be deemed supernatural event years ago is just technology today.

gives us no reason to suspect that a debate over of natural vs. unnatural or supernatural causes of the origin of the universe, can yield any useful insights, observations or means of determining the actual origin of the universe.

I agree it should be delineated as intentional designed cause of the universe over a unguided, unintentional cause of the universe and subsequently life.

The only reason I can imagine for a theist to try to force the fact that we do not fully understand the origin of the universe into their theology, is to convince him/herself that there could be - no matter how unlikely - an entity resembling their concept of their religion's god, that might be responsible for "creating" (by means that remain just as unknown as they were before the debate) the universe. This is oft referred to as mental masturbation.

This thread started with someone trying to force theists to explain how God can make things happen or cause a universe to exist.

What is the actual mechanism by which God can affect the natural world? How did he create the universe?

I pointed out that neither side of the naturalism vs intentional design debate knows how the universe came to be. If it morphed into a universe from a singularity we don't know what caused that event or what caused the singularity. We don't know how things operate outside of the laws of physics we are familiar with.

I call this issue a draw. Its also a dumb argument. How would a mere mortal created inside this universe be privy to how a transcendent agent caused the universe to exist? That would be like asking someone 300 years ago how does a cell phone work? Of course they wouldn't know. Does that mean there belief it was created intentionally is false? Does that mean cell phones are created by chance?

 

[Drew2008]

The problem is the supernatural is defined as what can't happen unless it does happen in which case its natural.

No matter how many people see 'ghosts,' they may become commonplace, but they won't stop being supernatural until someone explains the mechanism for their operation.

So anything we don't understand is supernatural until we do understand it? Then you have to acknowledge there are many supernatural events taking place as we speak. We don't understand black holes...so they're supernatural. We don't know the mechanism for how life started on earth so is life supernatural?

 

[bilby]

The answer God is a possible explanation to the question why a universe that allowed life came to exist

Sorry Drew. God is an answer to the question “why did a universe come to exist”, not an explanation of anything at all.

"Daddy, how did the magician pull the rabbit out of his hat?"

"By magic, son."

Do you have a non-magical explanation for how the universe came to be?

It always was.

I don't know if it's the correct explanation, but it's non-magical, and is completely consistent with all our scientific knowledge. All other hypotheses have to clear the very significant hurdle of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[abaddon]

How would a mere mortal created inside this universe be privy to how a transcendent agent caused the universe to exist?

Exactly. Which is why reasonable people will say "I don't know" and at most suggest their guess based on what they do know about this universe. They don't carry on about an unknowable transcendent agent outside the universe.

That would be like asking someone 300 years ago how does a cell phone work? Of course they wouldn't know.

If a person 300 years ago made the argument "there are cell phones" and people asked "how do they work?" and he goes "I don't know and you don't know either! so you shouldn't be insisting they don't exist!" then it'd be reasonable if everyone concludes the guy's talking out his butt.

Does that mean there belief it was created intentionally is false?

No, it means they don't have a reasonable justification for their belief.

If that person were alive in today's world and claiming there are cell phones to people who doubt they exist, and those people ask "how do they work?", he sure as fuck needs to either show a cell phone or describe SOMETHING of how they work if he wants to be convincing at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem is the supernatural is defined as what can't happen unless it does happen in which case its natural.

No matter how many people see 'ghosts,' they may become commonplace, but they won't stop being supernatural until someone explains the mechanism for their operation.

So anything we don't understand is supernatural until we do understand it?

I would not say it that way. Not ANYTHING we don't understand.
I didn't understand the lithium-bromide plant on the Franklin, but never ONCE thought it was supernatural.

Then

Proceeding from the assumed acceptance of your incorrect premise probably won't lead you to a truth. But let's see.

you have to acknowledge there are many supernatural events taking place as we speak.

Nope. Since that was not my stance, this is not a conclusion i must accept.

We don't understand black holes...so they're supernatural.

Nope.

We don't know the mechanism for how life started on earth so is life supernatural?

Oh, foul. Even for the false premise, this is faulty logic. No wonde you cannot identify circular logic.
We do not know for certain what the exact mechanism WAS, there's no reason, though, to think it's any mechanism we do not understand. Chemistry, for example, not alchemy.

 

[bilby]

Your claim that the singularity did not exist until your god created it is NOT a part of the consensus of science.

I didn't make that claim. Of course we are inquisitive people someone is bound to ask where or how did the singularity come about?

I don't think you understand what a singularity is.

It's not an object, it's a mathematical result of attempting to describe an object, that yields a nonsensical answer.

It's a limitation of our mathematics - what happens when you try to use an equation or equations to determine the properties of an object, but the equation includes a division by zero, is called a singularity.

We get around singularities by finding equations that get correct results, under a wider range of conditions.

The equations used in quantum mechanics get correct results when used to describe reality where electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions dominate, but are unwieldy and so unusable at very large scales. Fortunately, Einstein came up with a set of equations called 'General Relativity' that give correct results for very large scales, where gravity is the dominant force.

As we consider earlier and earlier periods in the history of the universe, there comes a time when the universe was extremely small (so quantum physics is needed to describe it), but when gravity was the dominant force (so general relativity is needed to describe it). But trying to use both sets of equations together results in nonsense.

That's the singularity. The singularity is not the state of the universe that we are trying to describe; The singularity is our failure to describe it due to inadequate equations.

We can say, with very high precision, how the universe is today; And how it was going back in time several billion years. But there comes a point where the universe is very small and dense, and our current mathematical models don't give us any information about how it was just before that point.

People often refer to that as 'the beginning of the universe', but that's just sloppy language; It's merely the beginning of our understanding of the universe.

It's not a point at which the universe itself began to exist. People have speculated that it is just after the universe began to exist, largely on the basis that extrapolation of the size of the universe suggests that it reaches zero a minuscule fraction of a second before the time of the singularity. But that's just speculation - by definition, we don't know what was happening at or before the singularity, because that's what 'singularity' means.

But with better models, which lots of very smart people are working on, maybe we will be able to work it out one day.

Unifying quantum theory with gravity is clearly very difficult, but we have no reason to think it's impossible. And if it happens, the current singularity may well disappear - and may or may not be replaced by a new singularity even earlier in the universe.

 

[bilby]

I call this issue a draw.

I note that this is often an attractive response to those on the losing side in any contest.

 

[bilby]

To the OP:

God doesn't do anything, and cannot do anything, at least not at the scale of objects smaller than solar systems but larger than atomic nuclei.

The physics of everyday life are completely understood, and there is no possible mechanism for supernatural or unknown influences on human scales. Any unknown force is known to be either too weak to affect an individual person (or even an individual planet); Or it exists only at such high energies that it would vapourise a human.

This completely rules out life after death, and all gods that are said to have intervened (or to be able to intervene) in human affairs. That disposes of all of the major religions in human history, and the vast majority of the minor ones too.

Of course, that's only true if quantum physics is correct.

It is.

We checked.

http://preposterousuniverse.com/blo...s-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...eryday-life-really-are-completely-understood/

 

[Keith&Co.]

I call this issue a draw.

How? What points did you score?

 

[Elixir]

... the god of the gaps is gapped further and further down....

Interesting how that works.

The answer God is a possible explanation to the question why a universe that allowed life came to exist

Sorry Drew. God is an answer to the question “why did a universe come to exist”, not an explanation of anything at all.

"Daddy, how did the magician pull the rabbit out of his hat?"

"By magic, son."

Do you have a non-magical explanation for how the universe came to be?

It always was.

I don't know if it's the correct explanation, but it's non-magical, and is completely consistent with all our scientific knowledge. All other hypotheses have to clear the very significant hurdle of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

It's like how the "irreducible complexity" argument has been exemplarized by smaller and smaller objects and phenomena.
Meanwhile, the "it always was" argument is eagerly accepted as valid when applied to (some but not all) god or gods.

 

[Drew2008]

Exactly. Which is why reasonable people will say "I don't know" and at most suggest their guess based on what they do know about this universe. They don't carry on about an unknowable transcendent agent outside the universe.

Yes either side of the argument needs to base it on what we do know not God or Naturalism in the gaps arguments.

If a person 300 years ago made the argument "there are cell phones" and people asked "how do they work?" and he goes "I don't know and you don't know either! so you shouldn't be insisting they don't exist!" then it'd be reasonable if everyone concludes the guy's talking out his butt.

I meant if we (in a hypothetical) brought someone forward a 300 years in time and showed them a cell phone, it would be pure magic how it worked. But they wouldn't guess it was caused unintentionally by natural forces.

 

[Elixir]

How would a mere mortal created inside this universe be privy to how a transcendent agent caused the universe to exist?

Exactly. Which is why reasonable people will say "I don't know" and at most suggest their guess based on what they do know about this universe. They don't carry on about an unknowable transcendent agent outside the universe.

Agreed.
I do wonder though, why God's beard turned gray. I would think he could keep that from happening.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's like how the "irreducible complexity" argument has been exemplarized by smaller and smaller objects and phenomena.
Meanwhile, the "it always was" argument is eagerly accepted as valid when applied to (some but not all) god or gods.

Because God is supernatural. His existence and operation REQUIRE He be outside known science, including cause and effect. So they can pretend the burden of proof is on the secular theories

 

[Elixir]

It's like how the "irreducible complexity" argument has been exemplarized by smaller and smaller objects and phenomena.
Meanwhile, the "it always was" argument is eagerly accepted as valid when applied to (some but not all) god or gods.

Because God is supernatural. His existence and operation REQUIRE He be outside known science, including cause and effect. So they can pretend the burden of proof is on the secular theories

Right. After a very short while, I am happy to let the theist go to sleep content that (s)he knows the origin of the universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Exactly. Which is why reasonable people will say "I don't know" and at most suggest their guess based on what they do know about this universe. They don't carry on about an unknowable transcendent agent outside the universe.

Yes either side of the argument needs to base it on what we do know not God or Naturalism in the gaps arguments.

Can you give an example of Naturalism of the Gaps? Something held to be factual because theists don't claim to know an alternative?

Twenty quatloos says you cannot.

 

[Learner]

What is the actual mechanism by which God can affect the natural world? How did he create the universe? Does he just think stuff and then it happens? How can he read the minds of seven billion people at once? I’ve never heard a good answer to the question. “Because he’s god“ doesn’t count.

This God would certainly not be human, as we understand ourselves, as mere limited mortals.. What would one "logically" expect and comprehend as an answer - as if one should know everything, so to speak? Requiring, I would guess, a capacity far exeeding the mere size of our craniums etc..

Ouch... it must hurt those individuals, getting headaches or migraines - when he/she thinks or believes that these particualr questions "can" be answered - thats both the questioner OR the one who thinks these answer can be given.

I wouldn't try to answer that myself, because trying to explain the "actual mechanism", you'll not expect to get a good answer, to which I agree with you, you certainly won't.