I think once you attribute eternalism to the universe, there is no longer a justified belief for an external eternal creator. — Josh Alfred
You can also look at the evidence for the absence of a creator. How much of space is empty? Why is there such a low life to space proportion if we are here intended by some higher being? — Josh Alfred
You can also look at the pieces of evidence that show that the universe is EVEN NOW forming naturally, with no apparent intelligence behind its formation (thus automatically).
You can declare that anything is "Caused by God" but that never really explains much at all. As Dawkins wrote, its an explanatory gap being filled with a deity. See: Occassionalism. — Josh Alfred
Eternal Inflation is usually presented as an atheist model... — Devans99
That depends on if cause and effect still have meaning outside of time; they might do in which case we could have an eternal (outside of time) God and an eternal universe he created. — Devans99
I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words. — MindForged
No time means no cause and effect. — MindForged
You can declare that anything is "Caused by God" but that never really explains much at all. As Dawkins wrote, its an explanatory gap being filled with a deity. See: Occassionalism. — Josh Alfred
I think it might be fun though, to link God's personality to the method of creation He chose. Devans99's God is very lazy, if you ask me. — Kippo
It proposes that the origin of the multiverse was a speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment — Devans99
What's the origin of the "speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment"? — Terrapin Station
I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words. — MindForged
Conway's life is very passive though - you wait for something unexpected to emerge.God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life. — Devans99
Not a problem! I've always fancied creating a more involved version of Conway's where one tweaks the rules in real time. Maybe your God tweaks the universal constants - though let's hope he does this by creating a universe per tweak, rather than changing them in established universes. Especially ours!If you put yourself in God's shoes, — Devans99
OK? Aside from the broad misuse of that theorem, "there was a first moment of time" doesn't lend anymore weight to there being a God or not. — MindForged
Check Sean Carroll's debate with William Lane Craig. Carroll shows one of them (Guth I think) saying it's a misuse of the theorem. — MindForged
Carroll is wrong. The BGV theorem proves there was a creation event, given a rather broad, realistic, and empirically established criterion. — Inis
If there indeed was a first moment of time, it cannot have been caused because there's nothing — MindForged
no matter how you cut it, you are saying that from nothing - there was something - that was not caused. Can't see how with that understanding - you can rule out a an un-created creator. It seems you are ruling it out as a possibility - simply because you want to rule it out. — Rank Amateur
Something doesn't come *from* nothing. You can call it uncaused if you wish, but notice how absurd the idea is if something is caused to exist at all. If "somethingness" is caused to exist, it has to be caused to exist by something. — MindForged
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.