If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[DBT]

The universe is eternal and cyclic, given an eternity of elements combining and recombining, anything that can possibly happen, happens....there you go, claims are easy to make.

 

[Wiploc]

... Your scenario confuses the physical with the metaphysical.

I'm working with what you gave me.

You’re trying to shoe horn a non-physical God into your physical “only” understanding of the world. Your scenario is replete with this theme. You’re trying to fit a supernatural God into your nature “only” understanding of the world. And you see contradictions. I get that. I would reach the same conclusion if I forced the universe to have a natural only explanation. It would be like trying to shoe horn the set of real numbers into the set of even numbers. It just doesn’t fit.

I offered you a definition of "begin," and you accepted it. That's not my fault. According to that definition, which you agreed to, your gods began.

And according to your own claims, begun things are caused. It follows then, that your gods are caused.

You'll have to accept that conclusion unless you want to offer some other meaning for the word "begin."

You seemed unhappy when I said I was having to supply your side of the argument for you, so I haven't done that in this case. And here we sit: Your gods are, by our agreed definition, begun. Therefore, your gods are, by your stipulated logic, caused.

 

[James Brown]

What does a supernatural ghost sound like?

Like nothing you've ever heard before.

and how are you reasoning that undescribed sound matches a supernatural ghost?

Because it doesn't sound natural.

What evidence and reasoning do you have that it was a supernatural ghost?

The sounds exist. There's no evidence that it was caused by something natural. Therefore, it must have been caused by something supernatural, like ghosts.

Either something created something from nothing
Or
Nothing created something from nothing.

Okay. Either something created the noises from nothing
Or
Nothing created the noises from nothing

Because……
The “something” is in question here. You have provided no reasoning other than you found no evidence therefore ghost. I have provided reasoning as to why God is the cause of the universe and thus it was not based upon the absence of evidence therefore wild guess.
As well…..
Your attic is not nothing. Thus there is strong reason to reason a natural cause. Which is what I would do with the noises in your attic.

Is it your position that if something is found to occur, and the source of it is not clear, then it is more reasonable to assume a natural cause?

 

[Learner]

But what if Joe was Lord of the Town, which he built with the 1 mile road, in the middle of a desert? All those in his town use the road and life is ok even when the road is short. In THIS scenarion Joe has a higher status than Sara because he also made the rules in his town that everyone can live by (it's sort of Adam and Eve in yours). He can also go beyond the barrier because being the only pilot, he flies a biplane. Sara always looks forward to seeing Joe when he's back in town ... because thats where those sort-after pineapples come from, 73 miles away.

Isn't it reassuring that people still can invent quirky stories just like the writers of Aesop's Fables and the books of the Bible?

If at all properly written 'illustrating some aspects of morals or truths' which are written about in both, I don't think my story would make the grade for the bible but could possibly for Aesop's fables.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But what if Joe was Lord of the Town, which he built with the 1 mile road, in the middle of a desert? All those in his town use the road and life is ok even when the road is short. In THIS scenarion Joe has a higher status than Sara because he also made the rules in his town that everyone can live by (it's sort of Adam and Eve in yours). He can also go beyond the barrier because being the only pilot, he flies a biplane. Sara always looks forward to seeing Joe when he's back in town ... because thats where those sort-after pineapples come from, 73 miles away.

Isn't it reassuring that people still can invent quirky stories just like the writers of Aesop's Fables and the books of the Bible?

If at all properly written 'illustrating some aspects of morals or truths' which are written about in both, I don't think my story would make the grade for the bible but could possibly for Aesop's fables.

You are unfairly flattering yourself.

Kind of like in the narrative of The Fall, when God says he banishes man and woman from the Garden.
Man: Wait... banish to where?
God: Outside of the Garden.
Man: There is an outside of the Garden?
God: Yes.
Woman: Well, it can't be that bad.
Man: If you could make this wonderful Garden for us to till and take care of, the outside must be just as nice because you have created it.
Woman: No, he has intelligently created it.
God: ...
God: Well it's not.
Man: What?
Woman: *Opening the very short Bible at the time* But it says here in the first story of creation that you saw good with what you created.
God: That version was just a draft. This is the real thing.
Man: So, outside of the Garden all sucks?
God: Dreadfully so. The people out there hate it.
Woman: People out there?
God: Where do you think Cain's wife comes from?

 

[ideologyhunter]

I thought Cain's wife was a rib whore.

 

[remez]

"Begin to exist" is scientifically meaningless,

In the context of the reasoning that I clearly presented….you by that statement there…… are divorcing the principle of cause and effect from science. How can you reason that and think anyone should take you seriously? I rest my case.

 

[remez]

The universe is eternal and cyclic, given an eternity of elements combining and recombining, anything that can possibly happen, happens....there you go, claims are easy to make.

Are you paying attention abaddon?
Because
This is for you too.

That is a prime example of the lazy belief that if you can simply just offer anything....... like an oscillation model….. against p2 then you can magically believe that you have defeated the argument.
Well…………
Reasoning doesn’t work like that. We need to compare the models and determine which better explains reality. In this case which model has a more reasonable representation of our universe?
So………..
The oscillation model flat out fails on these three accounts…..
1) There is not enough mass in the universe to reverse the accelerating expansion.
2) If a collapse was possible the radius of entropy would necessarily increases from cycle to cycle. Thus you would still have a beginning if you reason it through. Thus you are not creating an eternal past but simply kicking the can down the road.
3) It flat out fails the BGV.

Now I have shared this counter for years now. And every time I present the problems of that model..... the presenter goes COMPLETELY SILENT. They never defend their reasoning. They don’t try to rescue the model. They just go silent only to bring it up again at some future date. That is NOT how reasoning works. I have clearly demonstrated that the SBBM is by far more reasonable than your Santa. Thus you have not defeated p2. Grow up and find a new model already or defend that Santa, but don’t think for a minute you have even scratched the surface of the reasonability of the KCA with that fantasy.
Also
Your predicted silence will once again indicate that your attempted defeater is a failure.
Also……………
Your attempt to make the universe eternal…..demonstrates that you understand the important understanding that an eternal thing has no cause, and thereby is prime candidate as the first cause. Hence the motivation to present an eternal model of the universe in the first place.

So thank you for that admittance. And thank you for that failed model. For in principle its failure to reasonably challenge the SBBM strengthens the SBBM.

Try again?

 

[remez]

I offered you a definition of "begin," and you accepted it. That's not my fault. According to that definition, which you agreed to, your gods began.

I addressed this with you in posts 160, 161 and 170. “oranges are meat products” and “test B” . I had no problem with the definition. But I did point out that your jump from definition to reasoning that ALL things begin was a non-sequitur. You did not address the reasoning I gave you. And then you just repeated yourself here.

….. And here we sit: Your gods are, by our agreed definition, begun. Therefore, your gods are, by your stipulated logic, caused.

I don’t understand. You are only repeating yourself without addressing the reasoning that I’ve already provided in posts 160, 161 and 170. I never agreed that God began. That was reasoning I have pointed out to be flawed several times. It is clearly wrong. You have yet to address it.

 

[remez]

it your position that if something is found to occur, and the source of it is not clear, then it is more reasonable to assume a natural cause?

Absolutely.




But



Could the cause of nature itself……… be natural?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Begin to exist" is scientifically meaningless,

In the context of the reasoning that I clearly presented….you by that statement there…… are divorcing the principle of cause and effect from science.

No, that is not accurate. You are applying temporal constraints without actually providing a case for why temporal constraints exist, as there is no point in time that the universe didn't exist. This sounds like a technicality, but it is a significant truth you are ignoring.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

it your position that if something is found to occur, and the source of it is not clear, then it is more reasonable to assume a natural cause?

Absolutely.




But



Could the cause of nature itself……… be natural?

Up to this point, most things that were thought to have supernatural causes became reduced to having natural (but yet unknown then) causes. Theism is so desperate for a supernatural cause that it is turning the clock back 13.7 billion years to try and prove God has to exist because we can't perfectly explain what led to the expansion 13.7 billion years ago.

Seriously, if you have to turn back the clock that far back to find an instance in history that demonstrates the existence of a deity, that deity ain't doing much.

 

[abaddon]

remez's argument isn't that we cannot perfectly explain what led to the BB, but that none of the possible naturalistic explanations match supernaturalism for reasonableness at this point in time, because he asserts that science indicates an absolute beginning to all material existence so that leaves no naturalistic alternative that's as "reasonably plausible".

Seriously, if you have to turn back the clock that far back to find an instance in history that demonstrates the existence of a deity, that deity ain't doing much.

THIS is what I wonder about more than the rest. Even if any abstruse EoG argument were air-tight it'd have no pragmatic significance. The universe remains a godless one except for some theists going on about there being a god anyway.

 

[skepticalbip]

remez's argument isn't that we cannot perfectly explain what led to the BB, but that none of the possible naturalistic explanations match supernaturalism for reasonableness at this point in time,...

This is pretty much the crux of the 'argument'. Remez maintains that a devout belief in magic is more reasonable than uncertain guesses at solutions for unresolved events.

...because he asserts that science indicates an absolute beginning to all material existence so that leaves no naturalistic alternative that's as "reasonably plausible".

And here his assertion (made to support his acceptance of magic) demonstrates an ignorance of the actual cosmological models. At best, some cosmological models suggest a start of this particular phase of the universe.

 

[ideologyhunter]

A god who writes an incoherent book full of Bronze Age superstitions.

 

[hyzer]

No, that is not accurate. You are applying temporal constraints without actually providing a case for why temporal constraints exist, as there is no point in time that the universe didn't exist. This sounds like a technicality, but it is a significant truth you are ignoring.

Exactly. Time and space are part of the same fabric. One could say that there was no 'before' the universe and that the universe has always existed. Look, if remez gets to define his god as not encumbered by time, space, or the requirement of having to have a cause, then I get to define the universe per the same fiat. remez tries to use science to pigeon-hole the universe into the requirement for a cause, but denies everyone else the use of science to examine his god.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Up to this point, most things that were thought to have supernatural causes became reduced to having natural (but yet unknown then) causes. Theism is so desperate for a supernatural cause that it is turning the clock back 13.7 billion years to try and prove God has to exist because we can't perfectly explain what led to the expansion 13.7 billion years ago.

Using science to attempt to prove magic is certainly an interesting development among modern religionists. What's wrong with good old inerrant sacred writings to prove their magic claims? I guess it's that those stories aren't "scientific" enough, therefore not believable. Interesting.

 

[Wiploc]

I offered you a definition of "begin," and you accepted it. That's not my fault. According to that definition, which you agreed to, your gods began.

I addressed this with you in posts 160, 161 and 170. “oranges are meat products” and “test B” . I had no problem with the definition. But I did point out that your jump from definition to reasoning that ALL things begin was a non-sequitur. You did not address the reasoning I gave you. And then you just repeated yourself here.

….. And here we sit: Your gods are, by our agreed definition, begun. Therefore, your gods are, by your stipulated logic, caused.

I don’t understand. You are only repeating yourself without addressing the reasoning that I’ve already provided in posts 160, 161 and 170. I never agreed that God began. That was reasoning I have pointed out to be flawed several times. It is clearly wrong. You have yet to address it.

I don't understand how you can disagree with me on this point, but I'll revisit posts 160, 161, and 170.

I defined "begin" this way: Everything begins if it exists at some time X but doesn't exist before time X.

In post 160, you offered this nuanced agreement: Some entity e comes into being at t if and only if (a) e exists at t, (b) t is the first time at which e exists, and (c) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

I don't see how those are different. Where I say that something has a beginning if blah blah, you say it begins at that moment if blah blah. I have no problem with that.

Where I use the words "everything" and "it," you use the words "entity" and "e." As far as I can see, we are in agreement here. The specific words chosen all work to accomplish the same thing. If I'm wrong about that, if you think you made significant changes to our definition of "begin," then I request that you explain that to me. Because I'm straining to figure out how you think you "addressed this with you in posts 160, 161 and 170," and how I can have "reasoning [you] have pointed out to be flawed several times [which I] have yet to address."

Then you added a bit about tense.



You said that something begins at time x if its existence at time x is tensed. That confuses me. But I let it slide. And you never came back to it.

I'm not sure it means anything. But if I have to read meaning into it, you were saying that if something exists at time x, that is temporal. You were trying to repeat for emphasis that the thing exists at time x at time x. You were saying that something begins at the first moment that it really-o truly-o exists at a time.

If something exists at a time, it's existence at that time is tensed. Do I have that right?

Or did you mean something different which I just blew past uncomprehending?

If I'm right in my interpretation, then our two definitions are effectively one. They don't change the outcome. Gods existed (if they existed at all) at some time X, and they didn't exist before that. So therefore these gods began. By definition.

If time doesn't go back before time zero, then time has a beginning; and nothing (gods included) go further back in time than the beginning of time. Rephrased: If time began, then there was no time before time zero.

In which case, gods cannot be eternal. They are begun by the definition we have agreed on.

Yes, you claim they are eternal and unbegun, but you explicitly agree to the definition of "begin" according to which your gods began.

-

Moving along, grasping for something you wrote that may in your mind be relevant. You wrote:

Just because hamburgers begin to exist does not [imply] all things begin to exist.

Granted, stipulated, in all ways agreed with. It is not the hamburgers that make gods begun. It is the fact that we agree on a meaning of "begin" according to which your gods had beginnings.

-

How does an overt non-sequitur improve your economy of reasoning?

You can't think that is rational argument. But it makes me feel better about the times when I sound testy.

-

You wrote this:

You can’t BUT I can. Aka….merological nihilism. This objection conflates a thing with the matter or stuff of which the thing is made. Just because the stuff of which something was made has always existed doesn't imply that the thing itself has always existed. Here is how absurd it is….If that notion were true it would be sensible for me to ask you ….What were you when Alexander the Great died?
That objection is bankrupt of all reason. It’s just plain silly.

I skip over that because it was anticipatory rebuttal of an argument you subsequently rejected.

The proposed argument was that things change form but never actually begin. I'm not really comfortable with that, and you rejected it emphatically: You said, "That objection is bankrupt of all reason. It’s just plain silly," and, "Why should we accept a rule so blatantly absurd? Seriously that reasoning is bottom of the barrel."

So I look on the above quotation as a dead branch of our argument, something I needn't attend to. I won't bother to look up "merological nihilism," for instance.

But let me know if there is something in there that you do want me to deal with.

-

I said something about the beginning of the universe possibly not being truth apt. You rejected that, so we don't have to go there. Another dead branch.

Specifically, you said:

That’s fine. But your volitional opinion doesn’t improve your economy of reasoning against the reasoning of the KCA. We’re not comparing opinions here. We comparing whose reasoning for those opinions is more reasonable.

I assume, then, that I don't have to deal with that, so I skip over it and move on.

But, if this is the part of post 160 where you said something you think I should deal with, please bring it to my attention.

-

You said:

With reason…I ask you……. how does “begin” relate to “eternal.” Seriously if something is eternal does it have a beginning?

If something is eternal, it has existed for all of time, which is an infinite amount of time because time is an infinite regress. If time is not infinite and unbegun, then nothing is eternal.

I keep expecting you to introduce some alternate meaning, but you never do. So here we sit with you saying your gods are eternal, but agreeing that time didn't exist before time zero, and agreeing to a definition of "begin" that renders your gods begun, and yet insisting that I have overlooked some unspecified part of your argument.

That is more than a question here in this context. Maybe you should bother with that before resorting to opinion.
And …..

I'm not making a lot of sense of this, but the phrase, "resorting to opinion," makes me think it has to do with the previously mentioned dead branch, and that it therefore need not be dealt with.

Let me know if you want me to give it another look.

-

I said

Either gods (if they exist) begin like everything else, or nothing begins. Either way, the first cause argument fails.

and you said

But by your own words that is based solely on your opinion.

I don't know that I can agree with you here.

If nothing begins, then the first cause argument fails. If nothing begins, then nothing, according to your logic, is caused. Therefore, there would be nothing for your first cause to itself cause.

But, again, I believe that this is a dead branch which I therefore need not labor. You think things are begun and are caused. So that is where we should focus.

And on that branch of the argument, you have agreed to a definition of begin according to which your gods, if they existed, would be begun.

In which case, the first cause argument fails either way.




Then you wrote:

The reasons you provided to hold that opinion I have directly challenged to be less reasonable than the reasoning for the KCA. So we are still at the epistemic stage here.

I don't imagine anything less reasonable than the KCA. There are plenty of things equally unreasonable, but nothing more so.

Thus your special pleading assertion rests upon your opinion to reject the obvious reasoning that somethings begin to exist and somethings do not.

I deny special pleading.

You are the one who agreed to a definition of "begin" that includes your alleged gods.

Against that……. I reason that it is purely logical that things that are eternal did not begin to exist and thus do not have a cause.

I don't see how anything can be eternal without having eternal time to be eternal in.

And you have stipulated that time began. And you have almost stubbornly declined to offer any other meaning of "eternal." Not that I want to provide your argument for you.

And you stipulated that time is not eternal, that it began.

And you stipulated that your gods are in time at some time x that they didn't exist before. And you agreed to a definition of "begin" that makes such gods (gods who existed at a time X but didn't exist before time X) are begun and caused.

I really don't see anything that I can do for you here. This seems open and shut. I don't see why you aren't agreeing with me.

And overtly somethings do begin to exist and thus have a cause.

Granted.

I have reasonably, to this point with you, defended the KCA against your assault upon it. Your assault was not successful for the reasons I provided. This isn’t over ….you still have work to do.

I don't know what you think those reasons are.

I'm not going to go on to the other posts. I didn't find anything cogent in this post -- which you directed me to -- and I don't remember anything cogent in the others.

If you still think you said something relevant, something I should deal with, please bring that specific thing to my attention.

 

[James Brown]

Could the cause of nature itself……… be natural?

Probably not. But since we don't know why the Big Bang started, it's more parsimonious to assume a natural source.

Just like since I don't know what's causing the noises in my attic, it's better to assume it's an unknown but natural source than to assume it's a ghost.

When it comes to the big unknown questions, declaring, "I don't know, so let's find out" is more courageous than declaring, "I don't know, therefore God."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

KCA is passing the buck, nothing more, nothing less. The universe can't be eternal, therefore something else must be eternal. It presumes something extraordinarily complex and unsubstantiated with the certainty of saying the sky is blue. And then ignores its own premises to lead to a very happy and coincidental conclusion.

And then we run into the other issue of grammatical 'logic', which suffers the delusion of concluding that if you put words in just the right places, you create truth, when all that was done was the creation of a phrase or sentence.

Up to this point, most things that were thought to have supernatural causes became reduced to having natural (but yet unknown then) causes. Theism is so desperate for a supernatural cause that it is turning the clock back 13.7 billion years to try and prove God has to exist because we can't perfectly explain what led to the expansion 13.7 billion years ago.

Using science to attempt to prove magic is certainly an interesting development among modern religionists. What's wrong with good old inerrant sacred writings to prove their magic claims? I guess it's that those stories aren't "scientific" enough, therefore not believable. Interesting.

Most of the founding fathers of science tried to use science to prove god. All of those efforts were not successful unlike their significant science discoveries.