If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Jarhyn]

If you can bear with me, lets not (I've still to repspond to your previous post).

Learner, you're open to the possibility of a very complex thing just coming into existence. How will that help your argument that the universe is obviously too complex to have just come into existence?

Really, "the universe" did not come into existence per se as "complex". Really, the complexity is an illusion: there are only so many fundamental forces, ways basic things can be, and vehicles for their interaction. Physics is, at it's most basic levels, very cut and dry and mechanically simple.

The issue here comes in that complexity is just the fact that these a few simple rules produce a stunning degree of "freedom" within the system, and all that freedom within the system gets (falsely) determined to be "complexity" rather than the extant state, which is where all the actual complexity lives.

In many ways, a single person within the universe has more "complexity" than the relationships which drive the universe itself.

To that end, it would be harder to invent a god than it would be for (anything) to invent a universe.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you can bear with me, lets not (I've still to repspond to your previous post).

Learner, you're open to the possibility of a very complex thing just coming into existence. How will that help your argument that the universe is obviously too complex to have just come into existence?

I think Learner is using the hypothetical example of a 'god' who spontaneously pops into existence by pure chance/luck, to highlight the seeming absurdity of such an idea - just as it its hard to believe uncaused multiverses pop into existence unpredictably.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hey, if enough lightning bolts hit the water in a tidal pool, you will eventually get complex God molecules. Some will become genies, some will become pixies, but over time they develop into gods. I know the objection: "If God came from pixies, how come we still have pixies?" If you ask that, you just don't have enough faith. Look to the tidal pools, my friends.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you can bear with me, lets not (I've still to repspond to your previous post).

Learner, you're open to the possibility of a very complex thing just coming into existence. How will that help your argument that the universe is obviously too complex to have just come into existence?

I think Learner is using the hypothetical example of a 'god' who spontaneously pops into existence by pure chance/luck, to highlight the seeming absurdity of such an idea - just as it its hard to believe uncaused multiverses pop into existence unpredictably.

Why is it so "hard" to believe? You have infinitely complex gods just "popping" into existence as it is in your world view. Universes are simple in their rules even compared to the simplest of life.

We have examples of fundamental bits of the universe popping into existence unpredictably, and so I find it easy to believe that can happen: we can WATCH it happen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think Learner is using the hypothetical example of a 'god' who spontaneously pops into existence by pure chance/luck, to highlight the seeming absurdity of such an idea - just as it its hard to believe uncaused multiverses pop into existence unpredictably.

whether it uus hard to believe or not, you cannot have it both ways.

If complexity demands a creator, then you absolutely must explain the creation of that creator.

If complex things can just "somehow" come into being, you have absolutely no objection to make against any universe origin that is described in gods-free-terms.

Learner wants a god-necessary universe, but is willing to special-case the god. This does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[ideologyhunter]

What's more plausible:
> matter and energy have always existed, and worked on each other, and changed
> an invisible being with unfathomable wisdom and energy, that I cannot show you, has always existed

 

[abaddon]

I think Learner is using the hypothetical example of a 'god' who spontaneously pops into existence by pure chance/luck, to highlight the seeming absurdity of such an idea - just as it its hard to believe uncaused multiverses pop into existence unpredictably.

I'm not sure the point of the "where did God come from?" was clear to Learner, or you either.

It's this:

A. complex thing (universe) is a problem whose existence needs explaining.
B. complex thing (God) is a problem whose existence needs explaining.

Christians insist on A as a problem but bypass B as a problem. They "special case" the God, as Keith said. But it's the same problem for both 'complex things'.

So atheists are saying "no, stop special-casing the god and deal with B too".

Is it completely invisible to the theist mind? that you say "hey how'd this get here?" about one thing but not the other?

Learner was saying "well even if he just popped into existence, he's still YOUR GOD!" in confusion about what the point was. Now you say you find suddenly-existent universes to be absurd but not the just-happens-to-be-there God.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hey, if enough lightning bolts hit the water in a tidal pool, you will eventually get complex God molecules. Some will become genies, some will become pixies, but over time they develop into gods. I know the objection: "If God came from pixies, how come we still have pixies?" If you ask that, you just don't have enough faith. Look to the tidal pools, my friends.

That would be the argument from electrified tidal pools. Pretty novel.

Were I so inclined I think the argument I would prefer that most bolstered my faith would be the argument from everything. You name it, it's a great argument, even the argument from arguments.

Case closed.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think Learner is using the hypothetical example of a 'god' who spontaneously pops into existence by pure chance/luck, to highlight the seeming absurdity of such an idea - just as it its hard to believe uncaused multiverses pop into existence unpredictably.

I'm not sure the point of the "where did God come from?" was clear to Learner, or you either.

It's this:

A. complex thing (universe) is a problem whose existence needs explaining.
B. complex thing (God) is a problem whose existence needs explaining.

Christians insist on A as a problem but bypass B as a problem. They "special case" the God, as Keith said. But it's the same problem for both 'complex things'.

So atheists are saying "no, stop special-casing the god and deal with B too".

Is it completely invisible to the theist mind? that you say "hey how'd this get here?" about one thing but not the other?

Learner was saying "well even if he just popped into existence, he's still YOUR GOD!" in confusion about what the point was. Now you say you find suddenly-existent universes to be absurd but not the just-happens-to-be-there God.

Yeah, like, ESPECIALLY if he just popped into existence, he can go felch my asshole. I'll still hold whatever entity to the same standard of personhood that I hold all the people to.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hey, if enough lightning bolts hit the water in a tidal pool, you will eventually get complex God molecules. Some will become genies, some will become pixies, but over time they develop into gods. I know the objection: "If God came from pixies, how come we still have pixies?" If you ask that, you just don't have enough faith. Look to the tidal pools, my friends.

That would be the argument from electrified tidal pools. Pretty novel.

Or the argument from chemistry rather than magic.

Were I so inclined I think the argument I would prefer that most bolstered my faith would be the argument from everything. You name it, it's a great argument, even the argument from arguments.

Case closed.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think Learner is using the hypothetical example of a 'god' who spontaneously pops into existence by pure chance/luck, to highlight the seeming absurdity of such an idea - just as it its hard to believe uncaused multiverses pop into existence unpredictably.

whether it is hard to believe or not, you cannot have it both ways.

In metaphysics "hard to believe" is quite common.

If complexity demands a creator, then you absolutely must explain the creation of that creator.

I agree. IF....

Premise - All forms of complexity necessarily entail and are only ever explained by reference to a prior creator (with motive/intent) and

Premise - God meets the definition of complex. Then...

Conclusion - Lower case "g" god must have been created by an upper case "G" God, who, being more complex, would in turn require an even more complex Creator. (Infinite regression of prior creators.)

If complex things can just "somehow" come into being, you have absolutely no objection to make against any universe origin that is described in gods-free-terms.

Agreed.
...well, no reasonable objection can be made.

Learner wants a god-necessary universe, but is willing to special-case the god. This does not stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think that's Learner's position. I'm certain he doesn't claim that ALL complex things require said explanation as to their prior creator. A past-eternal, complex, Higher Being who creates/causes lower order complexity doesn't violate the above statement that complexity demands a creator. It doesnt violate the law of parsimony either IMHO.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, so we still don't have a definition of complexity, or a means to measure it, or a rough estimate at how many units it becomes "too" complex to just happen, but we have advanced.

Niw, it turns out there are two kinds of complexity, the one that does and the one that does not require divine interaction.
No clue on how one distinguishes between the two, but apparently that's been a sub rosa part of the argument all along.
Fascinating...

 

[Jarhyn]

Okay, so we still don't have a definition of complexity, or a means to measure it, or a rough estimate at how many units it becomes "too" complex to just happen, but we have advanced.

Niw, it turns out there are two kinds of complexity, the one that does and the one that does not require divine interaction.
No clue on how one distinguishes between the two, but apparently that's been a sub rosa part of the argument all along.
Fascinating...

Not to mention as I keep pointing out, the universe is simple. The things in it are highly developed, long since differentiating and condensing in stunningly complex ways... But this relationship is reflected by the Spirograph: a stunningly complicated graph that is really just the product of a very simple mathematical function.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Okay, so we still don't have a definition of complexity, or a means to measure it, or a rough estimate at how many units it becomes "too" complex to just happen, but we have advanced.

Niw, it turns out there are two kinds of complexity, the one that does and the one that does not require divine interaction.
No clue on how one distinguishes between the two, but apparently that's been a sub rosa part of the argument all along.
Fascinating...

Let's see, we have natural complexity and unnatural complexity. The question is why is it so easy to accept unnatural complexity? It must be because unnatural complexity cannot be examined, one either accepts it or doesn't. Natural complexity can be examined and documented and therefore claims about same can be evaluated, but it takes cognitive commitment and effort.

But some of us find natural complexity easier to comprehend and understand so we jettison unnatural complexity because it doesn't seem real. I guess it depends on whether a person is more comfortable in a courtroom or a choir.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, so we still don't have a definition of complexity, or a means to measure it, or a rough estimate at how many units it becomes "too" complex to just happen, but we have advanced.

Niw, it turns out there are two kinds of complexity, the one that does and the one that does not require divine interaction.
No clue on how one distinguishes between the two, but apparently that's been a sub rosa part of the argument all along.
Fascinating...

Not to mention as I keep pointing out, the universe is simple. The things in it are highly developed, long since differentiating and condensing in stunningly complex ways... But this relationship is reflected by the Spirograph: a stunningly complicated graph that is really just the product of a very simple mathematical function.

Or fractals.
Very simple math, very complex results.

 

[Learner]

If you can bear with me, lets not (I've still to repspond to your previous post).

I'm with Rhea: how about we not? We already have you acknowledging the possibility. Not that the existence of gods speaks in the first place to Euthyphro

The only thing I "acknowledged" was entertaining Moogly's and other posters (hypothetical) aproach. The usual thought-exercise/ experiment etc.. (Spot on Lion)

(I don't believe in "luck" or lucky universe, it's in the Bible.. )

 

[Learner]

I think Learner is using the hypothetical example of a 'god' who spontaneously pops into existence by pure chance/luck, to highlight the seeming absurdity of such an idea - just as it its hard to believe uncaused multiverses pop into existence unpredictably.

Why is it so "hard" to believe? You have infinitely complex gods just "popping" into existence as it is in your world view. Universes are simple in their rules even compared to the simplest of life.

We have examples of fundamental bits of the universe popping into existence unpredictably, and so I find it easy to believe that can happen: we can WATCH it happen.

But interestingly enough, LIFE seems to have popped in only ONCE at some particular point in time. One could think the Bible "plagiarised this knowledge" where it is written ahead of it's time, God created Life at one particular point in time, and no more after - hence only getting life from life (and multiplying).

 

[DBT]

That life may have emerged in some nook or cranny more than once can't be ruled out.

 

[ideologyhunter]

But interestingly enough, LIFE seems to have popped in only ONCE at some particular point in time. One could think the Bible "plagiarised this knowledge" where it is written ahead of it's time, God created Life at one particular point in time, and no more after - hence only getting life from life (and multiplying).

Was that back when snakes talked? Or was it later, when hybrids were created with carved sticks? Or was it when jackasses talked? Or was it when 2000 pigs could get possessed by demons?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think Learner is using the hypothetical example of a 'god' who spontaneously pops into existence by pure chance/luck, to highlight the seeming absurdity of such an idea - just as it its hard to believe uncaused multiverses pop into existence unpredictably.

Why is it so "hard" to believe? You have infinitely complex gods just "popping" into existence as it is in your world view. Universes are simple in their rules even compared to the simplest of life.

We have examples of fundamental bits of the universe popping into existence unpredictably, and so I find it easy to believe that can happen: we can WATCH it happen.

But interestingly enough, LIFE seems to have popped in only ONCE at some particular point in time. One could think the Bible "plagiarised this knowledge" where it is written ahead of it's time, God created Life at one particular point in time, and no more after - hence only getting life from life (and multiplying).

Then why is there so much death?