Two events can occur at the same time. And typically, causes precede their effects — Bartricks

If God creates a universe where cause precedes effect, i.e. where the effect becomes cause, the argument doesn't hold.

What if God created another God more powerful than him? What if he let that God kill him? What if he made a thousand copies of himself? What if he made infinite copies of himself, infinitely more powerful than himself? He can't do that because he is the most powerful. So he's not omnipotent.

Jackpot! And if the gap is closed, we can nothing but conclude that the building blocks of the universe had to be created.
— EugeneW


I have still not seen any proof of that. — Sir2u

How else can it be? A physical explanation doesn't explain why the physical is there in the first place.

There are people out there who deny its possible to not believe in something so obvious, and thus all atheists are liars. — Dawnstorm

It's possible not to believe. You wouldn't be a liar but a denier.

Pascal's wager, does God have a free will, the root of all evil, the problem of evil, omnipotence and free will, can theists reject dualism... lot of God talk going on. Is the end near, will the Sun be turned off soon, are we witnessing the end of modern civilization?

And that's the manner in which minds exist. — Bartricks

The mind and matter are just necessities for bodily existence. The Holy Trinity is in fact the Holy Unity surrounded by the unholy dual.

Only he who creates himself out of nothing has a completely free will. — charles ferraro

Unless she's holding him back.

Does God have free will? Like our own will, God's will is determined. Determined and free. Unless there are more gods. Which is the case. Ultimate coclusion: They, like us, have determined will and, dependent on their relation to each other, that will is free or bound. As it is for us. We were created in that image.

, lil D-Ker, be careful not too drown out here ... — 180 Proof

I'll lil will always be there to save your ass from going down under. There is always hope. Even for you, 180booze.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. — 180 Proof

S^_x#@a@Af@!!Gnarf#÷÷=/%dwart%^^%^!!!!

I falsified Witty Genestone! How bout that?

Science is, of course, only one way of interpreting nature which, though not without its problems and limitations, is the most probative, effective, reliable interpretive tool of nature we natural beings have developed so far. — 180 Proof

Of course. But it's the less probative, effectively effective, reliable, and most destructive, disruptive, and misleading vìew of nature we have developed so far, assigning way too much sex-appeal to white-coated representatives of the scientific church and their grey-suited, freshly-tied, programmed talking representatives in power positions, while over evaluating the IQ.

Zeno wouldn't have made such a vexing, idiotic speculation had he read and groked Democritus. — 180 Proof

The paradox is applicable to atoms. The front hook of the hooked sphere has to cross half way first, than 1/4, then 1/8, etc. The conclusion it can never reach its goal is not true.

Planck dispelled Zeno's "infinite divisibility" assumption once and for all. — 180 Proof

Planck didn't do that.

Science has provided physical grist for the metaphysical mill in many many instances — 180 Proof

But not for the mill, i.e. us.

Is the transcendence of metaphors and fairytails an impossible point at infinity? — lll

Now that's a great question in our beloved tradition. The sound already makes my head turn and ears direct! I wonder what's the answer.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world — St Augustine

Even a non-Christian? Is that knowledge meant for Christians only?

What can we speculate about without talking nonsense? To my mind, only ways of interpreting nature – mapmaking maps of the territory – without using "supernatural" (i.e. ontologically transcendent / impossible world) predicates. — 180 Proof

Like MWI, Calabi-Yau manifolds, supersymmetric strings, torsion tensors, and other supernatural nonsense?

Science is, of course, only one way of interpreting nature which, though not without its problems and limitations, is the most probative, effective, reliable interpretive tool of nature we natural beings have developed so far — 180 Proof

Rhetorical propaganda. You can do better 180booze. I have seen signs of intelligence in your words before, though scarcely.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. — 180 Proof

On the contrary. We have to speak out.

God doesn't give damn about your belief in him, — Book273

Agreed

, and proving his ability is pointless — Book273

At least he has to proof it to himself. How else does he practically know he is omnipotent? By his omniscience? Does his omnobenevolence forbid him to try? Or is it his omnipresence?

Every O, or OO, or OOO, undermines an O. OOO&O criples to the bone. OOO&O is equivalent to NONONO&NO. Like infinity and zero lay sleeping peacefully front to back.

he would have to do it all the time to convince some ass-hat that he is real. — Book273

No he wouldn't. Only to himself.

Endless nonsense. — Book273

Agreed.

Rage at the Sun all day and command it to appear no more; however the Sun doesn't do requests, so it will carry on as usual — Book273

You never know. One day she goes bezerk. Or maybe the Moon falls down, causing the Sun to stop rotating around the Earth.

It'd actually be less fun if we agreed on everything. — lll

Areed! Disagreement is like an ideal pencil sharpener.

To me he makes a pretty good chase that, among odor thinks maybe, we are moist row boats or dank blow pots or draping what chew chew drains. — lll

You gut an attractive means to xpress, my friend! Makes one read twice at least: "moist row boats or dank blow pots or draping what chew chew drains" Like I said, a most welcome light in dark philosophical times! For that already your comments are attractive to read! Regardless if I agree or not. And you have only started...

merrily blowing people's minds — Agent Smith

He did some good blow jobs indeed. Indeed, philosophy seems stuck. Never able to bridge that last gap. On every arrival a new distance to cross appears. That's why all that's left to do is forget the question and just take a last non-philosophical leap of faith and the final answer will be uncontradictably self-evidently true.

If he loves the truth so much, he should have called them altruistic. These little wookers exist for our use only. They come in handy to conduct evofruction.

The abstracting or yanking out is a kind of methodical ignorance that ignores currently irrelevant context. The latex gloves symbolize the necessity of caution when handling the kryptonite of philosophers, the informaniacal Mental — lll

I can kill information with bare hands when necessary. I don't consider it kryptonite, rather a modern computer based tool, the it-from-bit tool to explain away an obvious property of matter that cannot be explained otherwise. In that context it's called an illusion, an epiphenomenon, or an emergent property. Which is the question.

Perhaps you are being unfair to Dawkins. The selfishness of genes is just an anthropomorphic trope for self-replicating pieces of code that don't care if they persist or not. — lll

Then why don't call them altruistic?

And the gods are OK with that? — Sir2u

Yes. Boring argument! "How can the gods let that happen?" I've heard it 1000 times now. WTF should they care what and how we fuck up?

I have still not seen any proof of that — Sir2u

The very existence of the universe constitutes the proof. Not in your very limìted sense of proof but in the broader sense that everything that has no scientific explanation for its existence is a proof of creation. There are no gaps in my fundamental, scientific understanding of the universe. It's eternal and infinìte and the laws are too dumb to create themselves. So they can only be created. Including the basic stuff in it, which is dualistic matter.

And if you think ultimate truth is elusive, try finding a plumber on the weekend. — Tom Storm

:lol:

God is the ultimate plummer! You want his number?

Could be he's busy though. Much demand these days.

Just because something has not been explained does not mean that there is no explanation for it. It just means ignorance still exists. — Sir2u

Jackpot! And if the gap is closed, we can nothing but conclude that the building blocks of the universe had to be created. Modern man is on its way to destroy the beauty that evolved from it. By building railroads, energy plants, factories, etc. Just like that man did for 30 years. Problem is that those building it in the real world are not retarded.

I think Tom Storm's second possibility, that there is no ultimate truth, is probably correct. — T Clark

Probably correct is the same as probably incorrect. It's correct or it's incorrect. I think its incorrect.

And I suppose that the benevolent gods sit on the sidelines cheering their team on as well. But I suppose you answer that the gods gave them free will to do as they please. — Sir2u

The gods play their own game, not worrying about the games played here.

And how exactly do you now this? Maybe you could share the evidence you have, I am sure that many of us here would love to see it. — Sir2u

The fundamental laws of nature and the stuff acting conformly to them contain no recipe how they came into being.

Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern. — Gnomon

Righdijo! Look at a dreaming person. There are patterns of storms and atomic bomb explosions, or strange memories of sunlit streets running around on their neuron network, but the dream is something entirely different.

There is no good evidence that humans will understand ultimate truth — Tom Storm

There is very good evidence, I might say. We understand most parts of the universe, so why not the fundaments? What we will never understand is where the fundaments themselves come from. And that's where God comes walking in.

An 'assumption' as you say which is an unnecessary one. — Tom Storm

If you don't make this assumption you will never hit rock bottom. It's physical reality though that is the arbiter. We know when nature says that you found the bottom. You won't be able to go further. I don't see why we can't fathom nature. If the gap is closed we understand nature. Except where it came from, as it can't account for itself.

Seems a long way to present a woo of the gaps argument. — Tom Storm

It's a proof of the gap argument. The assumption it can be closed is more reasonable than that it can't be closed.

God, like us, is not subjected to laws and processes that determine thinking, choice, and action. Those laws and processes are the a priori for free will to exist. Without determined processes there would be no free will. So God created the world out of free will, be it by thoughtful deliberation and planning, or accidentally.

What about this necessity argument:

1. There is a gap between what we know and the
fundamental laws of the universe.
2. This gap can be closed.
3. This results in an understanding of the fundamental
workings and evolution of the cosmos.
4. The fundamental laws cannot stand on their own or be
their own cause, even when eternal. They are too
stupid for that.
5. It follows God exists.

I'm a theist. God created one kind of matter only. Or better, two basic massless matter fields, longing for or fleeing from each other by means of gauge fields. These basics of love and hate lay at the base of all universal life. So matter possesses the divine spark. Two matter field containing the divine spark. That quarticism even! After the gap was closed, there was nothing else to conclude. God is a logical necessity.

This reasoning is heard daily in our asylums. In the panopticon.

Or should I say, you are beat me with argument good being done are is. God done good. — Bartricks

Good done God!

Now in particle physics, we have the same problem; particles are completely identical. Worse still, while classical objects don't share the same location, that is not always the case on quantum scales. Thus, it ends up appearing that particles have no identity at all outside the type of particle they are. Or, if they are just excitations in a field, they are all the same excitation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In particle physics, no two identical particles share the same location. Identical particles can take each other's place at most. We never know which of the two identical outgoing particles was the incoming but the particles themselves know.

There is one exception though. If they disappear simultaneously from two points in space and simultaneously appear on two other points, they might be confused. Imagine disappearing at the same time as your identical partner. Then you both appear again at the same time. Who's who?

Then explain me!

The old trick of people out of rational argument. Show them their failing grammar or spelling.

Make an argument or go and do your homework. — Bartricks

God can't show his omnipotence. So he's not omnipotent.

Don't evade the question. The finest chef in the world does not cook drunk - they wouldn't be the finest if they did. — Bartricks

Even the finest cook has moments. What's your point with urine bread? What you want me to conclude after I receive pissed bread?

say. And anyone with any powers of observation confirms it. You were plonked into this world. You fell out of your mum, yes? — Bartricks

No. I was pulled out. But you were saying gods plonked us in. They didn't. They plonked the universe into existence. PLOINK!

So, to be clear, if you order toast and receive a cold, urine soaked piece of mouldy bread, it is reasonable - as far as you are concerned - to conclude that the finest chef in the world received your order and produced what is now in front of you? — Bartricks

No. I would conclude the chef is drunk or has a grudge against me. Since I don't know the good man, I'd say he's drunk. So were the gods when they created the world.

God would not create stupid, ignorant immoral people and create a dangerous world and plonk the stupid ignorant immoral people in it, would he? If you think he would, provide an argument. — Bartricks

Who says people are plonked into this world? I like arguments but false assumptions don't get my thumb up.