I'm assuming we can replace positive with assertive or irrefutable? — Outlander
That's a fact. So. By the same logic, it is not discounting the possibility. Therefore, er, yeah. When you're talking about things like parallel universes, black holes, and alien worlds the "possibility of God" becomes much more on par with the inverse. — Outlander
the notion that every event has a cause might lose meaning as one proceeds back in time. — Banno
Why hasn't this shite been consigned to the fairy-story section (or philosophy of religion, as it's optimistically called)? I usually have this stuff turned off so that I can pretend the site is a more serious one than it really is. — Isaac
How do you do that? — SophistiCat
It's late guys come on. There's a box that says "live cat" on it. You got 2 people who say they did research and concluded there is no cat. Last they checked. And you got 2 who say there is a cat because they witnessed it's "power" I guess. Maybe they heard a meow.
Yet no group can show not just me but themselves even without relying on the hearsay they so selectively despise if there is or there is not a cat.
To me, that's 50/50. — Outlander
If you've witnessed a black hole or alien world in person or through a telescope or something, then sorry. Rather can find one- right now- to show an independent observer. You're right. And I apologize. — Outlander
Great. Let's see. Flight. Travel to outer space. To the ocean. Communicating with one another on the other side of the land. It's getting rather hard to think of an item taken for granted now that doesn't fall under this area quite frankly. — Outlander
Here's your argument: " God did not cause everything and I don't believe in God therefore I don't believe in causation". Is that logic correct? — 3017amen
What's different about religion is that it has only been seen as increasingly implausible. It started out as stories, some people took them to be true — Isaac
After an absence of around five months - early release? - Devans99 is back with us. Welcome back!
I recommend to anyone tempted to engage with Devans99 that they first review some of his posting history. — tim wood
So Causation is necessary everywhere except were Devans doesn't want it to work in order that he preserve his god. — Banno
But they're not fine-tuned for life. That's just arrogance. The universe doesn't care that you exist. The fact that something can exist in the universe doesn't give it a teleology. — Kenosha Kid
My current position on the god-question is Deist, remaining Agnostic about any personal traits of the Creator of space & time — Gnomon
My alternative to the Turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse — Gnomon
What causes (e.g.) radioactive decay? — 180 Proof
The event at time 1 is caused by the event at time ½, which in turn is caused by the event at time ¼, and so on. Every event in the causal chain has a cause, without a first cause, in a finite time, and without reaching zero. — Banno
What many people don't understand is if there is gravity then there is definitely matter and heat and movement. Many Physicists agree with your OP and many don't. Many assume all Physicists agree. — christian2017
We don't know whether the universe is past-eternal or not — Enai De A Lukal
Devans99
2.6k
So make guesses...but don't suppose they are anything more than guesses
— Frank Apisa
We cannot even prove that we are not brains in vats... thanks to Rene Descartes. So we must resort to probability on questions like this. I believe the probability of God's existence is high, but technically I must remain agnostic forever. — Devans99
There are about 20 parameters of the standard model and Big Bang that are fine-tuned for life. — Devans99
Isaac
2.4k
Why hasn't this shite been consigned to the fairy-story section (or philosophy of religion, as it's optimistically called)? I usually have this stuff turned off so that I can pretend the site is a more serious one than it really is. — Isaac
No, they're not. The particular values allow for formations of the kinds of atoms we have, which allows for the kind of chemistry we have. They are not "fine-tuned", and certainly not fine-tuned for life. — Kenosha Kid
Your argument for God ends up being circular. You are supporting the existence of God with the argument that God chose the parameters of the universe such that you could exist. A proof of God's existence cannot assume he exists already. — Kenosha Kid
What causes "the juggling"? And how does that - distinct from anything else - "cause ... particles to be emitted"?Every now and again the juggling causes some particle to be emitted from the nucleus - radioactive decay. — Devans99
Yeah, like Earth "seems" flat and at the center of the cosmos. :roll:It seems that God exists outside spacetime and choose the parameters of spacetime and then created spacetime.So the argument is not circular.— Devans99
What causes "the juggling"? And how does that - distinct from anything else - "cause ... particles to be emitted"? — 180 Proof
So you don't know, Devans, or offer any sound inferences. Uh huh. I just wanted to clarify - expose - that your OP amounts to nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam aka "g/G-of-the-Gap" fallacy (though @Banno & co have beat me to it). 'Creationist apologetics' is for preaching to the gullible choir, friend, not for this scientifically (semi) literate & philosophically rowdy bunch of barflies. :yawn:... but I guess ...
... seems to be ...
My suspicion ...
... they just appear that way. — Devans99
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.