How does God do anything?

[atrib]

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?

I don't. But that doesn't mean we should believe some stopgap answer our ancestors came up with 2,000 years ago. Goddidit doesn't answer the question - it avoids it.

 

[atrib]

I'm pointing out those who don't believe we owe existence to God or a Creator or a bunch of scientists from a long gone universe have no better alternative explanation. By what actual means did naturalistic forces (that didn't exist yet) create the universe? If your lack of an answer doesn't count against your belief a Creator doesn't exist why should my lack of an answer matter? Its not expected I should know how God caused a universe to exist anymore than Neanderthals would know how to create a nuclear bomb.

Just to clarify, you are stating that there is nothing unnatural, that whatever you mean by god or god forces it is ultimately something we can understand, observe, make predictions about, has material existence, quantify, etc. You are saying we can forget about and get beyond the bullshit labels that is language. We should recognize that discussions about angels on pinheads are neural stimuli only. You are claiming that there isn't anything ultimately unexplainable. We only react emotionally out of ignorance, assign it woo value, no different than a toddler believing bullshit stories about flying reindeer or ghosts, or adults telling stories about vampires or how their houses are haunted. I can agree with that.

So what you are ultimately talking about is human scientific intuition, that instinctive desire in many of us to understand the physical universe of which we are part.

Does that accurately reflect your position?

The problem is the supernatural is defined as what can't happen unless it does happen in which case its natural. At one time it was accepted that time is the same every where and the idea you could slow down time was relegated to the supernatural meaning it can't happen...until we discovered it does happen at which point time dilation became a natural phenomena. What if everyone routinely saw ghosts and it was a part of our collective experience. Ghosts may continue to be an unexplained phenomenon but it wouldn't be considered unnatural.

I mentioned scientists have created (caused to exist) a virtual universe. What if they created a nice planet and populated it with virtual humans (who couldn't tell they are virtual). Would the scientists who caused them to exist become unnatural or supernatural? No doubt some of the beings on this virtual planet would come to the belief the universe they exist in was intentionlly created while others would be skeptical of such a claim. Kind of like what we have now.

How does any of this demonstrate that a god exists, or how it created the universe?

 

[atrib]

Was the universe created?

According to most scientists the universe came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago. Whether it was intentionally caused to exist or came about unintentionally from unknown process is the question we are debating.

So far we have this:

Atheist: We don't know.
Drew2008: Goddidit, but I can't demonstrate that in any meaningful way.

Call that a debate?

If atheists can't explain the universe's alleged "creation", that should count against their atheism? This assumes that "origins" has the same significance to atheism that it does for theism.

The atheist position we don't know what caused the universe or life to exist but we claim it wasn't a Creator is very weak.

There is no evidence for a creator god. When such evidence is presented, it will be considered.

Lets go back to your murder analogy. Suppose all we find is a body and we don't know if it was murder (intentionally caused to occur) or natural causes. You claim its natural causes but can't come up with a natural explanation. I claim it was intentional but can't find the smoking gun. It just means were in the same boat.

Exactly.
Other than the fact that scientists are actually looking for answers, while theists are not (because they know Goddidit, and they can't possibly be wrong). Which is the more reasonable position here?

 

[atrib]

Why do you assume naturalistic forces did not exist yet?
Why do you assume the universe started to exist?

Its not an assumption the scientific consensus is that the universe came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago. There appears to be a lot of data and facts that support that conclusion. Scientists also tell us that the laws of nature we now observe break down in the singularity (an unnatural phenomenon we call natural). The natural forces we are familiar with including the existence of time began to exist.

Correct. But that doesn't mean that the universe came to exist ex nihilo. Or that universes cannot come to exist ex nihilo from non-sentient processes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why do you assume naturalistic forces did not exist yet?
Why do you assume the universe started to exist?

Its not an assumption the scientific consensus is that the universe came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago. There appears to be a lot of data and facts that support that conclusion. Scientists also tell us that the laws of nature we now observe break down in the singularity (an unnatural phenomenon we call natural). The natural forces we are familiar with including the existence of time began to exist.

Correct. But that doesn't mean that the universe came to exist ex nihilo. Or that universes cannot come to exist ex nihilo from non-sentient processes.

I'm sure he understands that. But if he cedes the point in discussion his argument fails. So he's not going to admit it openly.

I'm still waiting for a couple answers:

When did his intender being begin to exist?

When did he begin to exist?

But I don't think he'll touch those either.

 

[atrib]

No, Drew. According to most scientists the universe went through a moment that changed everything. What went on before that moment does not equal a creation.

No you're mistaken. The claim is the universe came into existence from a singularity.


Posted on February 16, 2011 by Matt Williams

What Is A Singularity?​

Ever since scientists first discovered the existence of black holes in our universe, we have all wondered: what could possibly exist beyond the veil of that terrible void? In addition, ever since the theory of General Relativity was first proposed, scientists have been forced to wonder, what could have existed before the birth of the Universe – i.e. before the Big Bang?

Interestingly enough, these two questions have come to be resolved (after a fashion) with the theoretical existence of something known as a Gravitational Singularity – a point in space-time where the laws of physics as we know them break down. And while there remain challenges and unresolved issues about this theory, many scientists believe that beneath veil of an event horizon, and at the beginning of the Universe, this was what existed.

Definition:​

In scientific terms, a gravitational singularity (or space-time singularity) is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. In other words, it is a point in which all physical laws are indistinguishable from one another, where space and time are no longer interrelated realities, but merge indistinguishably and cease to have any independent meaning.

Singularity: as in, we don't understand how the physics at this time (general relativity) worked. We also use the term singularity to describe black holes.

We don't know how the universe came to exist in its present form, or if there was something before that.

 

[atrib]

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?

A singularity means a point where some property is infinite. For example, at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the density is infinite (because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume). Hence it is a singularity.

No, not necessarily. Singularity doesn't necessarily imply infinity; we come up with infinity if we use general relativity to try to describe it. General relativity doesn't work under these conditions.

Similarly, if you extrapolate the properties of the universe to the instant of the Big Bang, you will find that both the density and the temperature go to infinity, and so that also is a singularity. It must be stated that these come due to the breaking down of the classical theory. As yet, there is no theory of quantum gravity, but it is entirely possible that the singularities may be avoided with a theory of quantum gravity.

because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume

Infinities don't describe reality as we know it. Its a mental concept not a reality.

That's at least as magical as pulling a rabbit out of a hat. My point is there is no way to eliminate what appears magical to us.

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.

Scientists don't know, but at least they are working on answering that question. Theists simply assert a god, without any evidence to support its existence, or any meaningful description of how gods work

 

[Keith&Co.]

.The belief that unknown but natural forces caused the natural universe to exist is naturalism in the gaps.

So, shifting from 'of the gaps' to 'in the gaps,' and calling it 'done,' huha.
Yeah, that's the salient detail of my post.

Nope. Wrong. We have observed natural forces.
We have no reason to even leave room for anything else as a possible future candidate for causes of anything. It's not a gap, it's the only logical possibility.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

Yes, adding other people's ignorance is a choice you made.

"Of the gaps" was coined to identify a creationist tactic that has no corresponding effort among secular science defenders.
WLC is just trying to hit back because he really has no defense against the charge. So he plays "i know you are but whst asm i?"

 

[Elixir]

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?

A singularity means a point where some property is infinite. For example, at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the density is infinite (because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume). Hence it is a singularity.

No, not necessarily. Singularity doesn't necessarily imply infinity; we come up with infinity if we use general relativity to try to describe it. General relativity doesn't work under these conditions.

Similarly, if you extrapolate the properties of the universe to the instant of the Big Bang, you will find that both the density and the temperature go to infinity, and so that also is a singularity. It must be stated that these come due to the breaking down of the classical theory. As yet, there is no theory of quantum gravity, but it is entirely possible that the singularities may be avoided with a theory of quantum gravity.

because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume

Infinities don't describe reality as we know it. Its a mental concept not a reality.

That's at least as magical as pulling a rabbit out of a hat. My point is there is no way to eliminate what appears magical to us.

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.

Scientists don't know, but at least they are working on answering that question. Theists simply assert a god, without any evidence to support its existence, or any meaningful description of how gods work

Science has observations of cosmic behavior going back billions of years. Physics explains most of the big stuff, quantum mechanics explains other stuff, and religions explain that you will experience eternal torment if you accept any of either discipline’s findings that contradict their scriptures.

 

[Tigers!]

Of course, the only way to establish this would be to experimentally kill ourselves off then watch to see if anything happens....

Before you do that could you please organise with me a way to report your findings and I will pass them on to these fora? Any results will be most instructive.

 

[Tigers!]

Of course, the only way to establish this would be to experimentally kill ourselves off then watch to see if anything happens....

A++

Theists never consider sentience as an emergent property of matter and energy ...

Do you have any figures regarding the amount/type of matter & energy (and time if) required for us to see the emergence of this sentience? I have considered that sentience is an emergent property of matter and energy. Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it. Do you have a link to a study or experiment?

 

[steve_bank]

The BB extrapolates back o a theoretical initial condition, but does not say anything about how the conditions came to be.

A singularity mathematically can approach infinity but never gets there. They occur in engineering.

You can wiggle and dance, and try misdirection but so far no one has offered testable proof of a god, spirit or creator.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course, the only way to establish this would be to experimentally kill ourselves off then watch to see if anything happens....

Before you do that could you please organise with me a way to report your findings and I will pass them on to these fora? Any results will be most instructive.

Yeah, sure. A bit of writer's block at the moment, tho....

 

[Learner]

The BB extrapolates back o a theoretical initial condition, but does not say anything about how the conditions came to be.

A singularity mathematically can approach infinity but never gets there. They occur in engineering.

You can wiggle and dance, and try misdirection but so far no one has offered testable proof of a god, spirit or creator.

You can do that, antone can, but you could also make redundant the cosmic sciencey thingy questions, at least for now.. Not quite adequate for God answers... for or against.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

It's "causes of the gaps" all the way down, don't you agree? Or maybe it's "woo of the gaps." Yep, I'm going with "woo of the gaps."

Science actually works in tjose gaps. One of the distinguishing features of science, as opposed to pseudoscience is the ability to make predictions.
Like, "if evolutionary theory is true, we should find a creature at time X in the fossil record, with Y and Z traits." And thus, tiktaalik (sp?).

So, pretending having a hypothesis is equivalent to depending on the opponent's lack of evidence is not an argument made in good faith (a redundant observation if WLC is involved.)

 

[Learner]

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

It's "causes of the gaps" all the way down, don't you agree? Or maybe it's "woo of the gaps." Yep, I'm going with "woo of the gaps."

Causes all the way down... yes of course. You choose woo of the gaps... nice one. I may use sci-fi, short and sweet.

 

[Learner]

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

It's "causes of the gaps" all the way down, don't you agree? Or maybe it's "woo of the gaps." Yep, I'm going with "woo of the gaps."

Science actually works in tjose gaps. One of the distinguishing features of science, as opposed to pseudoscience is the ability to make predictions.
Like, "if evolutionary theory is true, we should find a creature at time X in the fossil record, with Y and Z traits." And thus, tiktaalik (sp?).

So, pretending having a hypothesis is equivalent to depending on the opponent's lack of evidence is not an argument made in good faith (a redundant observation if WLC is involved.)

I think he used the term quite adequately for his argument, not that you need to agree with him that he was correct with his viewpoint. Which video did you see?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

It's "causes of the gaps" all the way down, don't you agree? Or maybe it's "woo of the gaps." Yep, I'm going with "woo of the gaps."

Causes all the way down... yes of course. You choose woo of the gaps... nice one. I may use sci-fi , short and sweet.

Quick question, how many times have you seen those news articles about 'sci-fi come true?' Like Arthur C. Ckarke inventing satellites and waldoes?

As opposed to any woo making the front page?

 

[atrib]

Of course, the only way to establish this would be to experimentally kill ourselves off then watch to see if anything happens....

A++

Theists never consider sentience as an emergent property of matter and energy ...

Do you have any figures regarding the amount/type of matter & energy (and time if) required for us to see the emergence of this sentience? I have considered that sentience is an emergent property of matter and energy. Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it. Do you have a link to a study or experiment?

Sentience is linked to complex arrangements of matter that interacts in certain ways. We don't understand how consciousness arises, but based on everything we know, we can hypothesize that it is an emergent property of such arrangements. For human brains, we can also figure out the average mass of the brain, the approximate number of neurons (about 80 to 100 billion typically), and also measure how much energy the brain consumes in order to function.

From the standard model of physics, we also know what kinds of energy are able to interact with the brains that give rise to consciousness. We literally understand and can quantitatively define every form of matter/energy that can interact with and affect humans brains.