How does God do anything?

[Drew2008]

I call this issue a draw.

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

I haven't heard any alternate explanation from the it wasn't God crowd except naturalism in the gaps statements...

What?

You have heard explicit and detailed mechanisms.

For what caused the universe to exist? I can do a search all day long and I'm not going to find anything different. They infer the existence of a singularity that operates outside of the laws of physics that hadn't yet come into existence. Whatever the forces are they also operate outside of time. Calls into question the notion nothing can exist outside of the laws of physics or space time. The description of the singularity infinite density in zero space to our reckoning isn't possible. Infinities are a mental concept not a mathematical quantity.

No one knows (minus speculation) why the singularity suddenly expanded (it didn't actually explode) or why and how it existed in the first place.

How Did the Universe Begin?

It is perhaps the greatest Great Mystery, and the root of all the others. How did the universe come to be?

www.livescience.com

Even as the theories attempting to solve this mystery grow increasingly complex, scientists are haunted by the possibility that some of the most critical links in their chain of reasoning are wrong.

Fundamental mysteries​

According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.8 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second.



Initially, the universe was permeated only by energy. Some of this energy congealed into particles, which assembled into light atoms like hydrogen and helium. These atoms clumped first into galaxies, then stars, inside whose fiery furnaces all the other elements were forged.


This is the generally agreed-upon picture of our universe's origins as depicted by scientists. It is a powerful model that explains many of the things scientists see when they look up in the sky, such as the remarkable smoothness of space-time on large scales and the even distribution of galaxies on opposite sides of the universe.

Steinhardt worries cosmologists are acting more as engineers than scientists. If an observation doesn't match the current model, they attach another component or tinker with existing ones to fit. The components aren't connected and there's no reason to add them except to match observations. It's like trying to fix an old car by adding new parts from newer but different models. Those parts may work in the short term, but eventually, you need a new car.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not a religionist (didn't know there were such things). I don't promote or defend any religious beliefs. I'm a theist I believe our existence and the universe was intentionally caused. Not because of what we don't know and can't observe but based on what we do know and observe.

Except that you can't observe the great intender. You can't observe it, measure it, smell it, quantify it, predict what it will do, experiment with it, hear it, feel it, see it, you can't do anything with it. Unless of course you and the great intender are one and the same.

You can't observe, taste, feel, touch or explain the alleged natural forces that caused nature to exist but that doesn't stop you from believing they caused the universe and life to exist...true?

"...alleged natural forces that caused nature to exist..." What does that even mean?

Are you a presupper, those guys that like to say, "existence exists."

Maybe one day you'll learn to think and comprehend beyond labels.

 

[Drew2008]

It can not be objectively proven or disproven. Which is why religion is called faith not science. I question the faith of believers who seem to have a need to prove god to us atheists not for our benefit but for themselves to shore up faith.

What we can do is take apart what is offered as proof of god, like claiming god exists becasue god is refernced in the bible. Or YEC.

For me there is no question of creation, the universe has always existed and always will, which I can support based on science although that too is not proven.

The questions of ultimate origins are not provable scientifically, religiously, or philosophically. Which is why religion thrives, no way to disprove it.

If you want to believe a god winked it into existence and that improves the emotional quality of your life, good for you. Same for Hindus, Zoroastrians, Native Americans, Sikhs , Jews, Muslims and all the rest. I would however draw the line at sacrificial virgins to appease a volcano god. Jesus sacrificial lamb as metaphor is fine.

At this point after all te time on he forum it is hard to take any of this seriously.

Let me restate...I'm a theist.

Definition of theism​

: belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world


Theism is the belief the universe and our existence was intentionally caused by a transcendent personal source. There is no church of theism, promises of salvation or religious sacraments. Its a counter belief to naturalism.

Under this definition if the universe was caused by scientists in another universe or plane of existence then theism is true.

For me there is no question of creation, the universe has always existed and always will, which I can support based on science although that too is not proven.

That's just your alternate belief. Logic and reason however challenges it. If the universe always existed did time always exist?

 

[steve_bank]

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?

Nope. Anything observed with no explanation is just that, unexceptionable.

As someone who looks to naturalism and freethought, there can be no supernatural. All that exists is by definition natural. If you see a ghost and it is real then there is a causal link between it and your brain. even if we can not understand it. If ghosts do not appear when we need for study them then we can not study it.

From this side someone has an ex prince and claims it is paranormal but can't duplicate it is iaginingg it. Until it can be demonstred.


Someone is low on cash and prays to god for help. Turning a corner he finds a &20 bill on the ground and pronounces it god's providence. No way to prove or disprove.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For me there is no question of creation, the universe has always existed and always will, which I can support based on science although that too is not proven.

The questions of ultimate origins are not provable scientifically, religiously, or philosophically. Which is why religion thrives, no way to disprove it.

If you want to believe a god winked it into existence and that improves the emotional quality of your life, good for you.

That's it in a nutshell.

Of course you can't prove that I'm not an acorn disguised as a human, or that I'm not from Antares either. And that's a pretty low bar to hold up as evidence that something might be real. It's not evidence at all, actually, only argument. From an evidentiary standpoint there clearly aren't any magic creatures with magic powers, no god forces. There is certainly woo, and woo is nothing more than superstitious human behavior.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Someone is low on cash and prays to god for help. Turning a corner he finds a &20 bill on the ground and pronounces it god's providence. No way to prove or disprove.

To theists everything is god's providence. Finding a 20 and not finding a 20 are both what their magic being wants. Everything is what their magic being wants. They're low on cash because that's what the magic being wanted. Where's the mystery?

 

[Drew2008]

Great. What do you know (and how do you know it) and what do you observe on the topic of “how does god interact with the universe.”

Take you for example.
HOW do you know that your god exists? By what mechanism did this enter your head?

I don't claim to know God exists. I do believe the universe was intentionally caused by transcendent agents. Its a belief claim not a knowledge claim. Do you know or believe natural mindless forces unintentionally caused the universe and our existence?

 

[Learner]

You heard it said, and I'm sure you've said it yourself: " religion or faith is not science. " I have have no doubt theists agree with this too.

Lighten up there, Dude. First Drew destroys my irony meter and now you come along and fry my bullshit meter.

I'm not surprised. the irony-meter must be switched to 'personal opinion mode,' calibrated in units of woohoos.

(Moogs, I know you can take what you give out, as I've seen with the past mutual sarcasms, or banter I'd like to call it )

 

[Drew2008]

I call this issue a draw.

How? What points did you score?

It's like an algebraic equation. If both sides of the argument have the same weaknesses we can cross them out of the equation. I don't know how a Creator would cause the universe you don't know how unintended forces unintentionally caused the universe that supports life.

To simplify we can cross that off either theory. I might add the OP was really just a gotcha question.

 

[Rhea]

Let me restate...I'm a theist.

Definition of theism​

: belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically
: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

So how did you decide it was one, and not a married pair?
What did you see that made you conclude “one”?

 

[Rhea]

I call this issue a draw.

How? What points did you score?

It's like an algebraic equation. If both sides of the argument have the same weaknesses we can cross them out of the equation. I don't know how a Creator would cause the universe you don't know how unintended forces unintentionally caused the universe that supports life.

To simplify we can cross that off either theory. I might add the OP was really just a gotcha question.

But both sides do NOT have the same weaknesses. At all.

There is a lot of math that help understand +1 second, which can allow estimation of the existence of what happened before.

Then you say things like,

They infer the existence of a singularity

As if inference is not supported by evidence that makes it plausible.
That is how human knowledge and development work. As I described in detail above, inferences lead us to figuring out what experiment to test. A lot of people have done a lot of work on this.

The non-god explanation has a LOT of supporting data behind its inference.
The god explanation does not infer, it simply fabricates. You have no data or analog to explain “this is what we see that supports this idea.”

and then you say things like this:

that operates outside of the laws of physics that hadn't yet come into existence.

Which is a complete bastardization of the actual science, which never says the laws had not come into existence, it says, they do not apply at those conditions. They are still there.

It’s like you saying that whenever we look at atomic forces, gravity stops existing. No, it doesn’t. It just fails to have any effect at atomic levels. It’s still there. It’s still a force that is true.


I don’t know if you read these words and take anything away from them, learning a little more about science as you ride your “one god” horse around the plains, or if you will talk tomorrow as if the words had never been said today. Evidence so far in this thread suggests that none of the science that has been explained to you, will ever earn a dwelling place in your beliefs; because that space is occupied by a straw man that you feel you have vanquished and keep in a box there.


For others reading - Drew’s assertions have been met with data. And he appears to be singing Lalalala with his fingers in his ears, only to then say, “your evidence is just as weak as mine.” Don’t buy what he’s selling - it is willful ignorance.

Drew - this is not a draw. The arguments are not equally weak.

Your arguments are “because it’s god” and that somehow you know about it, and somehow you know what it did, and somehow you know there is one and not many… because… you observe things that you won’t talk about.

While science says: this is how the universe around us behaves. This is how it behaves when it looks more like what we are proposing as an early point. This is how the late behavior and mid behavior and the early behavior compare. This is what it would look like if we extend that line. All of the observatons agree on that direction. We have some gaps that we continue to study And test against what we know of stars, dense stars, very dense stars, dense objects that are not stars, small black holes, large black holes and very large black holes. This gives us a really solid backdrop for our hypotheses.

And then we look back at you saying, “I can’t know what that one god did because what do I know, but I’ll tell you I know it’s one god!”

Nothing else we do on this planet or in this life would survive such a careless approach. Indeed, we would not long survive if we used that approach in any other endeavor.

 

[Rhea]

HOW do you know that your god exists? By what mechanism did this enter your head?

I don't claim to know God exists. I do believe the universe was intentionally caused by transcendent agents. Its a belief claim not a knowledge claim. Do you know or believe natural mindless forces unintentionally caused the universe and our existence?

Substitute the word “believe” into my question to you. No need to be confused by definitions.
HOW do you believe that your god exists? By what mechanism did this belief enter your head?

Sure I’ll tell you (again) how my conclusion that there is no god now or ever in the universe. Same as the last time I answered it:

Because all the measurements and observations lead to predictable actions.
We say, “if we could go back to the origins, it would probably behave like this,” and then a better telescope is invented, and a series of pictures are taken of an object that we know would look more like the early universe than anything we’ve seen, and, by golly, those predictions work! Or we say, as a thing gets more mass and more dense, it will look more like the early universe and we predict, if our theories are right, that it will bevave like this.. Then we find one. And the hypothesis correctly predicted what it would do.


Every time the hypothesis correctly predicts ever more extreme conditions, we get better at saying, so what else could we look for that would behave one way if this were true, and a different way if it were not true? Let’s look for one of those. And we find one.

That’s the data I have to inform my conclusion.
And that’s the part of your thought process that is a barren wasteland, where the seed of inquiry can find no purchase.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I call this issue a draw.

How? What points did you score?

It's like an algebraic equation. If both sides of the argument have the same weaknesses we can cross them out of the equation.

Please list an example of Naturalism of The Gaps, then. I susprct iy's another term you do not understand, but use.
Which means your 'side' has greater weakness than the other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let me restate...I'm a theist.

Definition of theism​

: belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically
: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

So how did you decide it was one, and not a married pair?
What did you see that made you conclude “one”?

Esp. If we are unable to grasp details of the divine with mortal minds. What's the difference between transcendent being and thirty?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Great. What do you know (and how do you know it) and what do you observe on the topic of “how does god interact with the universe.”

Take you for example.
HOW do you know that your god exists? By what mechanism did this enter your head?

I don't claim to know God exists. I do believe the universe was intentionally caused by transcendent agents. Its a belief claim not a knowledge claim. Do you know or believe natural mindless forces unintentionally caused the universe and our existence?

So your are claiming to have a belief in a god but have no knowledge of same. Interesting. Not sure what that's worth.

 

[Bomb#20]

... it includes how he, for example, told Abraham to murder his own son. How did that happen?

We do know one plausible explanation, and that is that Abraham had a delusion. There is no evidence that rules that out, and, so far, no hypothesis to compete with it.

No? I've got a hypothesis to compete with it -- one considerably better evidenced than the "Abraham had a delusion" hypothesis.

 

[Drew2008]

Great. What do you know (and how do you know it) and what do you observe on the topic of “how does god interact with the universe.”

Take you for example.
HOW do you know that your god exists? By what mechanism did this enter your head?

I don't claim to know God exists. I do believe the universe was intentionally caused by transcendent agents. Its a belief claim not a knowledge claim. Do you know or believe natural mindless forces unintentionally caused the universe and our existence?

So your are claiming to have a belief in a god but have no knowledge of same. Interesting. Not sure what that's worth.

Nope got to answer my question first...

 

[Drew2008]

I call this issue a draw.

How? What points did you score?

It's like an algebraic equation. If both sides of the argument have the same weaknesses we can cross them out of the equation.

Please list an example of Naturalism of The Gaps, then. I susprct iy's another term you do not understand, but use.
Which means your 'side' has greater weakness than the other.

The classic example is multiverse theory. Its not only naturalism in the gaps its endless time and chance in the gaps as well.

 

[abaddon]

Do you know or believe natural mindless forces unintentionally caused the universe and our existence?

My own answer to this is: No I do not know or believe natural mindless forces unintentionally caused the universe and our existence.

You keep wanting atheists to be "in the same boat" with you regarding not knowing why existence exists so that just any belief goes. But there isn't a comparison between my forthright agnosticism that leads me to not invest in any belief claims or knowledge claims, versus your pretend-agnosticism that you use to protect your investment in your unjustified belief claim.

Not knowing cannot justify a belief. It can only justify a withholding of belief.

 

[Bomb#20]

I call this issue a draw.

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

I haven't heard any alternate explanation from the it wasn't God crowd except naturalism in the gaps statements...

Dude! "The natural vs not natural distinction is bogus. Anything that happens no matter how bizarre or unexpected if its observed, and it happens is natural. If it turns out we owe our existence to a transcendent being that would be natural too. What would be unnatural about it?" Have you forgotten that?

Your proposal is naturalism of the gaps. If somebody else's proposal is also naturalism of the gaps, that's only enough for him to catch up with you at naturalism of the gaps. You're still a step ahead at the gaps game overall, because you're playing naturalism of the gaps AND god of the gaps. What evidence do you have about the transition to the rapid growth and cooling phase of reality from whatever came before that specifically points to intent by a personal immanent mind? If you don't have an answer for that, then the issue isn't a draw.

It's like you and Gibbs are at a murder scene, and you both see the same evidence: a busted-in door, a knife in the back of a sailor, bloody footprints heading out the door, and Gibbs says* "An intruder came in, stabbed the sailor in the back, and left the scene of the crime." Then you say "An IRA terrorist came in, stabbed the sailor in the back, sang "A Nation Once Again" to himself, and left the scene of the crime. Then Gibbs slaps you in the back of the head.

(* This is after the NCIS scriptwriters stopped respecting their audience.)