Your claim to falsify "The universe was created" by appeal to the total body of knowledge is weak because it isn't possible to ascertain the total body of knowledge. I know further it is impossible to falsify because it is a metaphysical claim, just like the claim that "Forms exist" is a metaphysical claim. These are not scientific claims, they are metaphysical, and can't be proven or disproven unless they do make specific testable claims. So again, if I say that I believe the universe was created (I don't make that claim) then my belief is reasonable. Unless I exhibit a whole lot of other beliefs that appear to be unreasonable, in which case it might be legitimate to question the reasonableness of my beliefs in general.

Anyway let's drop as it has become a question of the legitimacy of metaphysical claims in general which I'm not prepared to argue at this time. :)

Your claim to falsify "The universe was created" by appeal to the total body of knowledge is weak because it isn't possible to ascertain the total body of knowledge. — Pantagruel

"The universe was created" is either vague and unsupported or entails things which are implausible given what we know. Was it an agent? Before the advent of stable systems capable of supporting agency? No, "like that but not".

You're treating the claim "the universe was created" like it doesn't require any further explication - a description of how. Like a description of how is too much to ask. The reasons I don't believe it was created are because descriptions of how are implausible given what we know (for previously stated reasons; logically contradictory, equivocating, unsubstantiated, conceptually confused, inconsistent with little we do know about how the universe works), and if someone doesn't feel the need to say how, I have absolutely no reason to believe them.

The issue is usually approached like the legitimacy of a creator comes from a hole in knowledge (dark matter, how far our universe description goes back does not include "the first instants") OR conceptual confusion (alleged regresses, prime movers not needing their own causal explanation, necessary to exist because a stated conceptual problem is allegedly impossible to solve without them, bad interpretations of science or pseudoscience (woo lives here) ). Then "a creator exists' is stipulated to be the end of the matter; as if no more questions need to be asked; as if how they did it need not be stipulated along with that they did it for the account to make sense.

So again, if I say that I believe the universe was created (I don't make that claim) then my belief is reasonable. Unless I exhibit a whole lot of other beliefs that appear to be unreasonable, in which case it might be legitimate to question the reasonableness of my beliefs in general. — Pantagruel

This treats a person being reasonable as the same as a statement being reasonable. A reasonable person can have unreasoned or unreasonable beliefs; a person knowing how to reason in general does not entail that that person applies the competence in forming/supporting every belief they have. A better account stratifies the competences into domains, people know how to reason about some things but not others.

When it comes to creator hypotheses, people often short circuit; they stop asking questions about how because apparently they have established that, and apparently that's that. When you start asking how questions, the claims are shown to be the confused and unsubstantiated drivel that they are.

Anyway let's drop as it has become a question of the legitimacy of metaphysical claims in general which I'm not prepared to argue at this time. :) — Pantagruel

It's not about that at all, to me. Metaphysics in general is fine. It's simply because creator hypotheses are unsubstantiated on all of the details (and thus there's no reason to believe them), conceptually confused, entail logical inconsistencies or are implausible given what we know.

People who believe they have demonstrated the existence of a creator would sooner believe their conclusion than examine the conceptual content of their own writing (assumptions, inferences, interpretations); questions cease. Why not pursue the next one instead?

You're treating the claim "the universe was created" like it doesn't require any further explication — fdrake

In the sense that it is a metaphysical claim, it doesn't. This is an idea whose origins predate science certainly, probably recorded history. It is an idea that has "historical content" (forgive me, I'm just finishing off R.G. Collingwood's "Philosophy of History" which talks a lot about the self-creation of the mind as historical knowledge). As such, I don't think, prima facie, it requires any more justification than that. As I said, I'm not really into doing a "deep-dive" at this time.

In the sense that it is a metaphysical claim, it doesn't. This is an idea whose origins predate science certainly, probably recorded history. It is an idea that has "historical content" (forgive me, I'm just finishing off R.G. Collingwood's "Philosophy of History" which talks a lot about the self-creation of the mind as historical knowledge). As such, I don't think, prima facie, it requires any more justification than that. As I said, I'm not really into doing a "deep-dive" at this time. — Pantagruel

Because something has been believed historically and had social institutions devoted to that belief does not entail it is well justified given what we know (even as part of a metaphysics). This is just as true for phlogiston, the theory of humours and homeopathy as it is for creator hypotheses and their associated worldviews.

Because something has been believed historically and had social institutions devoted to that belief does not entail it is well justified given what we know (even as part of a metaphysics). This is just as true for phlogiston, the theory of humours and homeopathy as it is for creator hypotheses and their associated worldviews. — fdrake

Wow. You have a real issue with this, don't you? Many people (myself included) have an inkling, an expectation, a hope, that there is more to life than meets the eye. The things that happen to people qua people don't resolve into scientific terms. Life is complex and multi-dimensional. Do you really think that what we know exceeds what we don't know?

That's all I have to offer.

1) Does the supernatural exist? (P=.5)
2) Can an unembodied mind exist? (P=,.5*.5)
3) Can material come into existence without prior material? (P=.5*.5*.5)
4) is it possible for a mind to plan something as complex as a universe? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5)
5) Was there an intent to create life? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)
— Relativist

[1] Is 100% IMO, spacetime is a creation, so 'super-spacetime' must exist — Devans99

You're allegedly proving the existence of a creator, so you can't assume it.

[2] Who says God is an unembodied mind? He may have a body. I do not know.

You can follow both possibilities, and consider the probabilities. If he's material, and performing acts - he's expending energy; if the material and energy of the universe "must" have been created, then this material, energy-expending "god" must have been created.

[3] Material could timelessly pre-exist the creation of spacetime. God could have used that in creation of the Big Bang

This implies he didn't create the universe, he just played a role in shaping it - but this raises other questions: can energy come into existence, violating conservation of energy?

[4] I think this is 100% yes. God might have done a few prototypes first

There is zero basis for your claim that it is possible.

[5] Is 100% IMO. What other motivation could he have?

Artistic pleasure; the joy of problem solving; scientific experiments to see what might result.

Your answers reveal your bias, and it demonstrates that your approach of applying the Principle of Indifference(POI) to carefully selected loaded questions also reflects bias. Compare this to a case where the POI is applicable, like coin flips: there is no alternative set of questions that leads to a different result.

Wow. You have a real issue with this, don't you? — Pantagruel

No, not at all.

Many people (myself included) have an inkling, an expectation, a hope, that there is more to life than meets the eye. The things that happen to people qua people don't resolve into scientific terms. Life is complex and multi-dimensional.

A non-cognitive explanation for holding a belief describes a cause for it but is not a justification.

Do you really think that what we know exceeds what we don't know?

No. What we know however limits what we can reasonably believe.

A non-cognitive explanation for holding a belief describes a cause for it but is not a justification. — fdrake

Who said it has to be justified? A belief is essentially a hypothesis. Justification goes beyond the hypothesis to its proof. Again, per Popper, the origin of a hypothesis doesn't matter.

Who said it has to be justified? — Pantagruel

For claims like "there was a creator of the universe", which already play part in conceptual arguments and constrain empirical matters, the ability to justify them is presumed. If someone wants to behave as if they know there was a creator in such contexts, it's a performative contradiction (treating the claim cognitively until their ability to justify the claim ceases) and a conceptual error (knowledge claims need justifications) to suspend the need for justification.

If a statement need not be justified in principle (in any context), it is not known.

A belief is essentially a hypothesis. — Pantagruel

Hypotheses are implausible (and sometimes demonstrably false/wrong) when they contradict what we know, entail contradictions and require conceptual confusion and equivocation to articulate. I hypothesise that 1+1=3, but wait that's implausible. I hypothesise that the Earth is flat, or is that a matter of metaphysics? I believe that the universe is an egg and was hatched by the Great Chicken, it's fine to believe because justification is not required.

Non-cognitive motivations make far more sense in most cases for belief in a creator or finding it plausible (well, more strongly, "seeing" the attraction). Questioning the claim's plausibility is felt to come along with questioning necessary human emotions, like hope and love and wonder.

Many people (myself included) have an inkling, an expectation, a hope, that there is more to life than meets the eye. — Pantagruel

Like this. As if wonder goes away with questions and explanations rather than promoting them in the first place.

Do you mean that from the root, the universe is fine tuned to create life-support? Further, what is involved in this fine tuning?

(Otherwise, I'm lost).

By definition, belief is not knowledge. You are treating belief as if it were knowledge.

You keep coming up with sweeping statements like

For claims like "there was a creator of the universe", which already play part in conceptual arguments and constrain empirical matters, the ability to justify them is presumed. — fdrake

Nonsense. A belief is a belief, it isn't knowledge. You don't accept any forms of justification (historicity, tradition, intuition) which clearly are sufficient to the foundation of a belief qua belief. I believe you are of the "last word" school of philosophy, so be my guest.

By definition, belief is not knowledge. You are treating belief as if it were knowledge. — Pantagruel

No, a reasonably held belief has a justification for it. Arbitrary beliefs do not. A justification is not required for a belief to be a belief, but it is required for a belief to be reasonably held. X knows that P surely looks something like X reasonably believes that P!

historicity — Pantagruel

tradition — Pantagruel

intuition — Pantagruel

History, culture and intuition in general serve as belief promoters but not belief justifiers. They may cause us to have beliefs, but do not thereby justify holding those beliefs.

No, a reasonably held belief has a justification for it. — fdrake

"Epistemic coherentism – Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds"

1) Does the supernatural exist? (P=.5)
2) Can an unembodied mind exist? (P=,.5*.5)
3) Can material come into existence without prior material? (P=.5*.5*.5)
4) is it possible for a mind to plan something as complex as a universe? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5)
5) Was there an intent to create life? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)
— Relativist

[1] Is 100% IMO, spacetime is a creation, so 'super-spacetime' must exist
— Devans99
You're allegedly proving the existence of a creator, so you can't assume it. — Relativist

OK let's leave this one a 50%.

[2] Who says God is an unembodied mind? He may have a body. I do not know.
You can follow both possibilities, and consider the probabilities. If he's material, and performing acts - he's expending energy; if the material and energy of the universe "must" have been created, then this material, energy-expending "god" must have been created. — Relativist

I think this question overlaps with question [1] so it is not right to consider it separately in the probability analysis. I also think you are assuming that God must follow your common experience of what applies within spacetime. God is from beyond spacetime so I not believe that temporal constraints such as energy expenditure would apply. We as humans are only familiar with a tiny fraction of what might exist and trying to say that everything in existence must follow the tiny fraction (of what we know) is a fallacy.

[3] Material could timelessly pre-exist the creation of spacetime. God could have used that in creation of the Big Bang
This implies he didn't create the universe, he just played a role in shaping it - but this raises other questions: can energy come into existence, violating conservation of energy? — Relativist

I don't think this is relevant to the probability analysis of: 'is the universe a creation?. The material may or may not have pre-existed the universe timelessly. By 'creation' I mean creating spacetime; whether it was done with pre-existing material is not relevant to the probability analysis.

[4] I think this is 100% yes. God might have done a few prototypes first
There is zero basis for your claim that it is possible. — Relativist

We run simulations of the universe on our computers, so it is not even beyond our very limited abilities; why then should it be beyond God's? I think this is therefore 100% yes.

[5] Is 100% IMO. What other motivation could he have?
Artistic pleasure; the joy of problem solving; scientific experiments to see what might result. — Relativist

Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis.

So I still get the initial probability of a the universe being a creation as 50%. To which all the positive evidence that the universe is a creation must then be added:

1. Nothing can exist 'forever' in time - It would have no initial state so no subsequent states
2. So everything in time is a creation
3. So there must be a creator
And
1. Time has a start
2. So time must be a creation
3. So there must be a creator
And
Universe is not in equilibrium / Causality based arguments / Fine tuning / Big Bang

That is quite a lot of evidence in favour of the universe being a creation.

Epistemic coherentism — Pantagruel

Has lots of flavours. None I'm aware of which substitute in:

Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds — Pantagruel

persons for systems of belief which are held, negotiated and challenged socially. If you relativise it to persons in that way, justification of a claim is entailed just by a person having a system of beliefs which coheres with it in some sense. This makes justification a personal matter, rather than a social one.

It becomes justified to believe that one is Frodo Baggins if one believes that one's father is Bilbo Baggins; rather than listen to the rest of our socially distributed knowledge systems refuting it ("He's not Frodo, he's just high.").

So you are also an expert on epistemic coherentism now? Along with every possible variety that every person might ever have held?

Ok Frodo.

So you are also an expert on epistemic coherentism now? — Pantagruel

No, not an expert. I don't need to be an expert to point out an obvious misconstrual of that type of position. If you would provide me with references that give a coherentist account of justification that make coherence with one's own beliefs to be sufficient for justification, I'd be grateful.

Since there is frequently a gap between what people claim and what people do, the only reliable measure of belief is the actions which those beliefs engender. So as long as a person's actions don't contradict their beliefs, their beliefs may be said to be epistemically coherent. Words are cheap. "Enactive Coherentism". Me.

You claimed that some statements don't need justification.
Several posts down the road you presented a flawed definition of a theory of justification which is established in philosophy.
The next post you provided a personal definition of coherentism... that

So as long as a person's actions don't contradict their beliefs, their beliefs may be said to be epistemically coherent — Pantagruel

defines your view as someone is justified in believing something so long as believing it doesn't make them a hypocrite. While being a terrible portrayal of coherentism, it is good moral advice, and scarcely relevant to the claim that "there was a creator".

Coherence relations are justificatory relations between beliefs. They consist of (something close to) logical consistency (a logical property that two things can be true at the same time) + explanatory consistency (one claim supports or does not refute another). This is exactly the standard I've been using to argue that beliefs in a creator are unjustified; they entail contradictions and do not fit in with what we know, or are so vague and unspecified that they don't relate to anything at all!

Au contraire. I provided a version of coherentism founded on enacted belief, based on the well-founded fact that people often misrepresent themselves verbally. It's perfectly possible to act in a coherent way. Sorry if that particular version of coherentism isn't to your liking.

2] Who says God is an unembodied mind? He may have a body. I do not know.
You can follow both possibilities, and consider the probabilities. If he's material, and performing acts - he's expending energy; if the material and energy of the universe "must" have been created, then this material, energy-expending "god" must have been created.
— Relativist

I think this question overlaps with question [1] so it is not right to consider it separately in the probability analysis. I also think you are assuming that God must follow your common experience of what applies within spacetime. God is from beyond spacetime so I not believe that temporal constraints such as energy expenditure would apply. We as humans are only familiar with a tiny fraction of what might exist and trying to say that everything in existence must follow the tiny fraction (of what we know) is a fallacy. — Devans99

If the supernatural exists, that makes certain things possible that are othewise impossible. If God is natural, it raises other questions - like energy conservation, what he's made of, how he came to exist....The point is that the question of God's existence is complex, and creating some yes/no questions to which you apply 50%probababilities cannot possibly be an objective approach - the specific questions chosen are subject to bias, and the probabilities attached are subjective.

We run simulations of the universe on our computers, so it is not even beyond our very limited abilities; why then should it be beyond God's? I think this is therefore 100% yes. — Devans99

We simulate gross behavior and get general results. This simulation entails modelling from a pre-big bang state to the formation of 1st generation stars, to 2nd generation star systems with the building blocks of life and the conditions for abiogenesis- and determining in advance what life would look like. More importantly, when we model physical systems, we are applying known science. Observing and determining how the world works is of negligible complexity compared to designing how the world will work, from the ground up.

Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis. — Devans99

Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis. — Devans99

It is relevant to your fine-tuning argument because that argument treats life as a design objective. Aside from the context of my questions entirely, this defeats the fine-tuning argument you stated.

If the supernatural exists, that makes certain things possible that are othewise impossible. If God is natural, it raises other questions - like energy conservation, what he's made of, how he came to exist....The point is that the question of God's existence is complex, and creating some yes/no questions to which you apply 50%probababilities cannot possibly be an objective approach - the specific questions chosen are subject to bias, and the probabilities attached are subjective. — Relativist

God as the creator of spacetime cannot, by definition, be of spacetime (be of nature).

God cannot have come into being; he must be timeless: all infinite regresses are impossible, that leaves only finite regresses, so causality must have an uncaused cause at the base. And it is only possible for an uncaused cause to be timeless (no 'before' - permanent existence).

As to whether God is made of some sort of material and whether he is complex or simple, I am not sure.

Observing and determining how the world works is of negligible complexity compared to designing how the world will work, from the ground up. — Relativist

Agreed, but we are talking about a timeless architect of the universe. If time is not a constraint, it is possible to come up with anything. Maybe he went through 1000s of prototypes both simulated (in computers) and real before coming up with the Big Bang and our version of spacetime.

"Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis.
— Devans99
It is relevant to your fine-tuning argument because that argument treats life as a design objective. Aside from the context of my questions entirely, this defeats the fine-tuning argument you stated. — Relativist

The meaning of life is surely information - more information of good quality results in a better life. This applies to us and God equally. Which contains more good quality information - a non-life supporting universe or a life supporting universe? It is the 2nd, and that is what a god would seek to create.

In addition, God is constrained by logic to being benevolent. That means given the choice between creating a non-life supporting universe and a life supporting universe, he would always take the 2nd path.

I admit I am unsure about the existence of God. I think he probably exists is maybe as strong as I should state my belief. Multiple logical arguments point to the requirement for a god, but also dictates he must be very alien - timeless and uncaused - which makes me doubt the logic of his existence. I am, I think, basically a materialist but the requirement for God to exist versus the nature of God makes me even question my own materialist outlook. It is a fascinating problem.

God as the creator of spacetime cannot, by definition, be of spacetime (be of nature). — Devans99

...but we have no evidence of anything existing that is not part of spacetime, so you can't just assume it. Without evidence, it's merely a bare possibility - infinitesmal probability. So if we start with this question, we're done: no need to consider anything else. The fatal flaw in your argument is that it's a biased framework - choose questions that are loaded with biased assumptions.

As to whether God is made of some sort of material and whether he is complex or simple, I am not sure. — Devans99

If a material creator exists it's not God - because the same questions arise for the creator's material existence as for the universe's existence.

"Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis.
— Devans99
It is relevant to your fine-tuning argument because that argument treats life as a design objective. Aside from the context of my questions entirely, this defeats the fine-tuning argument you stated.
— Relativist

The meaning of life is surely information - more information of good quality results in a better life. This applies to us and God equally. Which contains more good quality information - a non-life supporting universe or a life supporting universe? It is the 2nd, and that is what a god would seek to create.

In addition, God is constrained by logic to being benevolent. That means given the choice between creating a non-life supporting universe and a life supporting universe, he would always take the 2nd path. — Devans99

You're interjecting your prior beliefs about God, which means you're reasoning is circular. My original point stands that your fine-tuning argument depends on the assumption that life is a design objective. Since that entails a designer, you are basically assuming God exists in order to prove he exists; i.e. it's circular.

I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exist, I'm just trying to help you understand why "proofs" of his existence fail.

If you're seeking a rational reason to believe in God, consider reading Alvin Plantinga's book, "Warranted Christian Belief." It contains nothing that is persuasive to a nonbeliever, but it proposes a rational framework for believers.

It's not valid to write ... -> -5 as '...' is undefined then -5 is also undefined. — Devans99

Ellipses simply means the pattern continues. How would you write the set of integers? Just like that.

You are confusing your evidence-free intuitions with a rational argument.

Anything existing in time forever is impossible. It would have no initial state so no subsequent states — Devans99

If you state that as a premise, then you are assuming what you want to prove.

If you want to believe that time or the universe must necessarily have a beginning, you are free to make that assumption.

I am suggesting that it is logically coherent to make the opposite assumption, and I offer the totally ordered set of integers as a thought-model or analogy.

If you argue against me by simply restating your assumption, that's not an argument.

Why couldn't the universe have simply existed forever? Or for that matter why couldn't it go forward in time a long ways, then loop back to the past, a circular model of time. Take the unit circle in the plane as a model of time. You just keep going 'round and 'round and there's no beginning and no end.

What makes you so sure your model is correct, except for a vague feeling that there must be a first cause. Well then that first cause existed forever. You can't escape this problem by saying God did it.

Hindus or Buddhists certainly wouldn't. — Wayfarer

That's a good point. The first-mover argument is essentially a Christian idea. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That's @Devans99's argument and William Lane Craig's as well. The intuition comes from one's cultural upbringing. Westerners have a hard time imagining forever in both directions. But they are willing to accept forever in one direction as long as it's to the right. Where is the logic in that??

Well, if the universe had no beginning then the past is infinite. So here we have the past as negative infinity as that's what you mean using the integers. Now consider the now to be any number on the integer number line: -3567, -9, 0, 1, 2019, etc. How do we reach these points? We'd have to pass through a positive infinity of time to reach these points. Now, is that possible? Of course not. Why? Think of the positive infinity {0, 1, 2, 3,...}. Can we pass through this positive infinity of time to reach any point that can be considered the present? Impossible, right? There has to be a beginning. It's not turtles all the way down. — TheMadFool

$- \infty$ is not a point on the number line.

For just a moment, forget that we're talking about time or causality. Just consider the number line of integers:

.., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

Nobody complains about it. It goes on infinitely in both directions, but there are no endpoints, Nobody ever says, "Well there MUST be a finite endpoint on the left but not on the right.

Nobody ever says, "How could -4 exist? We'd already need -5 to exist. Etc. And the process could never start."

Nobody ever says that. We take for granted that the integers go right and left forever.

In particular there is no leftmost point that you need to "start from" in order to "reach" -4. Rather, -4 is right there. -4384378437 is there. Every integer is "just there."

Why isn't it possible that time or causality are like that? Just because you have an intuition of a first element doesn't make your intuition right. As was noted recently, Buddhists have a very different intuition about the flow of time. You are simply expressing a Western cultural tradition. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That's essentially why you have such a strong psychological conviction that there must be a "first element."

After all you are not arguing that we could never reach 5 "from the right." Why not? Past and future are symmetrical. Think of the block universe model of physics.

To "reach -4 you start at ANY integer, and either move right or left a finite number of steps. There are no points at plus or minus infinity.

Bottom line you're simply repeating your Western beliefs. But why can't time be eternal in both directions? Why can't it be circular? Who says it can't be these things?

As others have pointed out ...

1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner — Devans99

Petitio principii. :yawn:

Akin to ... 'Causality must be caused' or 'A north pole must have a north pole' ... 'Strawberries must be made of strawberry-atoms'. or ... :eyes: :lol:

3. An infinite regress ... is impossible

False. Loops, circumferences, cycles, fractals, etc can be infinitely regressed ... Travel in a straight line, D99, in any direction on Earth and after traveling c24.9k miles you must arrive where you'd departed from because the Earth's surface is finite yet unbounded.

FINITE YET UNBOUNDED.

Is infinity a Western Concept? I wasn't aware of that? Anyway...here's a simple argument:

Suppose a distance of 100 km between points A and B. If we travel from A to B we cover a distance of 100 km. However if we were to travel in the reverse direction, from B to A, we still cover the same distance of -100 km. Right?

Similarly when someone claims that there was no beginning, it implies an infinite past. Mathematically, if we take the present to be 0 on the integer number line then the past extends to negative infinity. That simply means that if we travel back into the past we would be faced with negative infinity and never reach a beginning point. However, like in my example of a 100 km distance between points A and B, if we travel from our past which is negative infinity to the present, point 0 on the integer number line, then we would have to traverse a positive infinity of time to reach the present, point 0 on the integer number line. However, positive infinity is, by definition, an interminable quantity and a task that cannot be completed.

...but we have no evidence of anything existing that is not part of spacetime, so you can't just assume it. Without evidence, it's merely a bare possibility - infinitesmal probability. — Relativist

We will never have any evidence of anything existing beyond spacetime because we are limited to space-time only. Without any evidence for or against, you can hardly assign an infinitesimal probability - that would be showing unwarranted bias against the proposition. Unbiased is 50%/50%

You're interjecting your prior beliefs about God, which means you're reasoning is circular. My original point stands that your fine-tuning argument depends on the assumption that life is a design objective. Since that entails a designer, you are basically assuming God exists in order to prove he exists; i.e. it's circular. — Relativist

No it is not circular reasoning. I have a separate, very reasonable, hypotheses that all intelligent creatures (including any gods) would basically reason in the same way. A mind is a memory plus some logic circuits of some sort - so they must all work in a similar way. Right and Wrong can be defined in terms of net happiness and net sadness and these basic concepts would apply to all creatures. So any mind would be a logical device that understands right/wrong and has a memory. I can also prove that all intelligent creatures are benevolent, so we can add that constraint to the nature of God too.

I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exist, I'm just trying to help you understand why "proofs" of his existence fail. — Relativist

One can assign a probability to God's existence. Then any proofs help to modify that probability. And I enjoy coming up with proofs. And it is a very traditional philosophical pastime to try to prove the existence of God.

You are confusing your evidence-free intuitions with a rational argument. — fishfry

You are failing completely to understand the dynamics of causal regresses. I have given you examples that I child could follow. I am almost at a loss. One more example:

Imagine a perfect, frictionless pool table. The balls are wizzing around and will go on wizzing around for a potential eternity of time. Is this an infinite regress or can we infer an initial state where the balls were set in motion by the player?

If you want to believe that time or the universe must necessarily have a beginning, you are free to make that assumption.

I am suggesting that it is logically coherent to make the opposite assumption, and I offer the totally ordered set of integers as a thought-model or analogy. — fishfry

It is not logically coherent to assume that time has no start.

Do you believe that a greater than any finite number of days has passed?

Why couldn't the universe have simply existed forever? Or for that matter why couldn't it go forward in time a long ways, then loop back to the past, a circular model of time. Take the unit circle in the plane as a model of time. You just keep going 'round and 'round and there's no beginning and no end. — fishfry

If the universe existed for ever and its current state is X, then precisely state X has occurred a greater than any finite number of times in the past. Reductio ad absurdum, the universe has not existed forever.

I think that a circular model is possible, but it still has a start/end of time at the Big Bang / Big Crunch. And a force eternal to the universe would still be required to cause the start of time (the Big Bang).

What makes you so sure your model is correct, except for a vague feeling that there must be a first cause. Well then that first cause existed forever. You can't escape this problem by saying God did it. — fishfry

It's hardly a vague feeling, it's a logical certainty that a first cause is required as all infinite regresses are impossible. A first cause must be uncaused, IE beyond time. That then ties in nicely with the the 8 proofs I have that time has a start - a start of time also implies something from beyond time / causality.

1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner
— Devans99
Petitio principii. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Explain why it is 'Petitio principii'.

3. An infinite regress ... is impossible
False. Loops, circumferences, cycles, fractals, etc can be infinitely regressed ... Travel in a straight line, D99, in any direction on Earth and after traveling c24.9k miles you must arrive where you'd departed from because the Earth's surface is finite yet unbounded.

FINITE YET UNBOUNDED. — 180 Proof

The circumference of the earth is finite as is everything else. Actual infinity is impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1) so for this reason, infinite causal regresses are impossible

Then the other reason that infinite causal regresses are impossible is they have no starting element and the earlier elements define the later elements - no first element means no nothing - infinite causal regresses cannot exist. They are like a house existing without its foundation.

Fractals are not examples of infinite regresses; they are iterations that start known, defined, initial conditions. Any infinite regress has no starting point so none of it can be defined.