I'm assuming we can replace positive with assertive or irrefutable?

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.

(and if the arguments that purport to establish God's existence require faith every bit as much as belief in the existence of God itself- which is certainly the case for the proposition that the universe is past-finite or "began to exist"- then what exactly is the point?)

I'm assuming we can replace positive with assertive or irrefutable? — Outlander

A positive claim is an assertion. Not sure what irrefutable has to do with it.

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

Black holes and alien worlds are observable phenomena. God would be a metaphysical claim, like parallel universes. But yes, an argument asserting that God is impossible would look very different from an argument asserting that God isn't real. This thread is about the latter.

Huh. That's a fair amount to think about. While I do tell me.. no relation to the idea of "an inch over the line is the same as a mile" or is it?

I get your example, thank you for that. The planet being a globe there is an absolute "northernmost point" as well as the opposite. Any further is... objectively in relation to the dynamics more... the opposite. Relatively, essentially. Huh. Definitely will come back to this. May or may not quite grasp it yet.

the notion that every event has a cause might lose meaning as one proceeds back in time. — Banno

I'm sure you'll forgive me but a little tongue in cheek.

Yeah because that happens all the time... :D

I mean. Yeah. Even if true there has to be some irony to a fictional independent observer. If one goes back in time there would be no linear knowledge of the preliminary event so the cause would simply be another event. Perhaps all causes are events and all events are causes if you look into it enough eh.

Oh. Great. I'll just come by and you can show me a blackhole and alien world. You know just real casually. Not a big deal.

No, we will not "Google it" or "watch a YouTube video" or believe some "paper doctrine" (alleged peer reviewed research) as the same can and is done toward the idea of God.

If you are unable to do so, I'd assert the odds remain 50/50.

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?

If you are unable to do so, I'd assert the odds remain 50/50. — Outlander

I was prepared to let all this garbage about God as an explanation on a par with the Big Bang slide, but misuse of probability is where I draw the line. So it's 50/50 is it? Show your workings.

If you are unable to do so, I'd assert the odds remain 50/50. — Outlander

In that case, I'd assert that your epistemic standards are idiotic.

How do you do that? — SophistiCat

Go to 'Categories', pick the one you don't want to see, scroll down to the bottom of the page and there's a little eye. Just click on that and the whole category no longer appears on the front page. It's brilliant.

Glad you liked it.

Wittgenstein was seriously spiritual, by all accounts. While he would have rejected outright the ridiculous argument of the OP, he may have had some time for what religion, when at its best, might try to show; music, art, sacrifice and courage.

:up:

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. 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. Until said circumstances are met, blind faith unites us more than some would like to admit.

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

No. The mere existence of two possible outcomes does not in of itself make the probability space 50/50. Consider a coin flip. There are three possible outcomes - heads, tails, side. The mere existence of these three possible outcomes does not in of itself make the probability of any one 1/3.

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

Why would my personal observation be privileged? That's an idiotic standard. Case in point: you're not even observing me in person. So you don't know whether I exist, it's 50/50, right?

Unfortunately I don't know you, friend. Perhaps you're an esteemed professor in a relevant field. I wouldn't know. Perhaps you're not. You clearly have a firm grasp on reality. I can sense it even from here. What makes speculative theory into credible research? Peer review. If it weren't for "personal observation" having a value, well... case in point.

Generally I don't know what you constitute as "I" (you) so naturally, only you could answer that. Do you? I'd hope so. :D

Man. If I had a time machine and one of those Men in Black memory wipe pens I'd bring this guy and we'd enforce geocentric theory for millenia.

After all, there'd be no proof. I mean come on its the 15th century for crying out loud. No time for unproven fairy tales. To the gallows with ye! :smirk:

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At a guess I'd say you're trying to make some point about the fact that many things we now think of as true were at the time thought of as fairy-tales? If so, I can't really think of any examples. Most of things suppressed as heresy (like the non-geocentric theory) were dismissed precisely because they had good solid evidence for them and the church were rightly very worried about it supplanting their storytelling.

Total word salad then! Wonderful. I clearly need some help. Perhaps there's a nice cage for me somewhere. That'll teach me for going against the narrative.

Oh, by some phenomenal, astronomical chance your guess is what I logically explained. 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.

We're still escaping the point. Intentionally or not that is up to the concerned reader. What makes a theory that has yet to be proven but perhaps rather somehow definitely will different than storytelling? Perception. Assurance. The final proof as they say.

Additionally, assuming they were not corrupt, which I'll admit is a toss up. It was not because they wanted to not fall out of favor because "it'd hurt their feelings" as much as it was that Charles Darwin effectively orchestrated the Holocaust with his ideas. Think about it. Don't be biased. What country are you from? You've never entertained the idea of what it would be like to "assume control" of- obviously a weaker as faith in this world is only for the hearty- neighboring country? Don't lie.

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

You were talking about issues which were considered fairy-tales at the time but later turned out to be true. That we can travel to outer space at that time, was indeed a fairy story and in has never yet been shown that they could travel to outer space at that time. The idea that space travel might one day be possible, was always (to my knowledge) considered at least plausible, and it indeed turned out to be the case. Same goes for your other examples.

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, but gradually most reaslised they were implausible. The scientific knowledge we now have has not followed this trend, in fact the opposite in every way. It didn't start out as a story (it was intended to be an explanation all along) at no point in time did masses of people believe its propositions to be the absolute truth (they've mostly been seen as a work in progress), and theories have generally become more and more plausible.

The two sets of propositions are not remotely comparable.

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

No, still the same fallacy.

"I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe that God caused everything." That logic is correct.

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

Sounds a bit like world peace then. Religion could mean anything. From Zen Bhuddism or contentness with nothing non essential to empire building. The concept is the idea of an intelligent Creator God as opposed to meaningless chaos for little more reason that what can be imagined by the individual.

Before that, right, what is plausible could one day be possible. That doesn't change the fact that those who vocally advocated the plausible yet unproven as truth were treated poorly.

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

Hi Tim! For the record, I have just been having a quiet think to myself for the last few months.

So Causation is necessary everywhere except were Devans doesn't want it to work in order that he preserve his god. — Banno

I think that everything in time has a cause.

We cannot prove this - it is merely an empirical observation - but no-one has ever found any phenomena (at macro level anyway) that is uncaused - so the axiom of causality is about as strong an axiom as there is. Maybe the law of the excluded middle is stronger, but there is not much else.

Everything in time has a cause leads to the inescapable conclusion that at least one cause must be external to time. That's certainly very much how the Big Bang looks - surely the start of spacetime - and surely that start was caused by something external to space time.

Things outside time not having a cause makes perfect sense - there is no 'before' for timeless things, so they by definition must be uncaused.

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

There are about 20 parameters of the standard model and Big Bang that are fine-tuned for life. Its billions to one against that that happened by accident.

My current position on the god-question is Deist, remaining Agnostic about any personal traits of the Creator of space & time — Gnomon

Sounds like a sensible position. I would say I am agnostic-deist but strongly leaning towards deism.

My alternative to the Turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse — Gnomon

By a wider universe outside spacetime, I do not mean a multiverse. I mean something timeless - it has permanent existence - it was never created - it will never be destroyed. This timeless thing is then the root cause of everything in existence. So it is not turtles all the way down - the buck stops with the timeless first cause.

What causes (e.g.) radioactive decay? — 180 Proof

A radioactive nucleus is very busy - quarks juggling with each other - constantly exchanging gluons. Every now and again the juggling causes some particle to be emitted from the nucleus - radioactive decay. So there is a cause of radioactive decay - but its beyond the capability of our physics to ever predict when decay will occur.

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

That does not work - the first cause determines the 2nd cause, the 2nd the 3rd - there can be nothing without a first cause. Your picture is a supertask - they are impossible - there is no clearly defined first cause so none of the supertask can exist.

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

Thanks Christian! I think the other arguments relating to time having a start dovetail nicely with the first cause argument. Time having a start implies a timeless first cause that caused the start of time. The causality argument also implies a timeless first cause. Then there is Aquinas's 3rd of 5 ways that comes to the same conclusion. So 3 separate arguments all point to a timeless first cause.

We don't know whether the universe is past-eternal or not — Enai De A Lukal

We do know that time has a start - how could the past possibly be longer than any finite number of days?

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

I am agnostic forever...and at age 84 in 6 weeks, "forever" doesn't seem that far away.

As for your comment, "I believe the probability of God's existence is high, "

MY TAKE:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

There are about 20 parameters of the standard model and Big Bang that are fine-tuned for life. — Devans99

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.

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.

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

What are you saying here, Isaac?

Are you saying the existence of gods is impossible?

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

Consider a computer program that is designed to generate random universes - the parameters of the standard model and Big Bang are randomised and a resultant universe is generated. The types of universe generated would nearly always fall into the following two categories:

- Too much adhesion. The forces are such that all matter in the universe clumps together in one (probably) big black hole. No complex matter ever forms - so nothing like life (water, amino acids, DNA, etc...) can form in this type of universe

- Too little adhesion. The forces are such that the matter particles just endlessly bounce of each other - no complex matter - so no life.

Very, very rarely, the computer program will generate a universe like ours that supports complex matter (elections and quarks make atoms - all 100+ elements from just two types of particle. And from that we have the amazing complexity of the almost infinite types of different molecules that are needed for life. The odds of such a universe occurring purely randomly are billions to one.

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

It seems that God exists outside spacetime and choose the parameters of spacetime and then created spacetime. So the argument is not circular.

Every now and again the juggling causes some particle to be emitted from the nucleus - radioactive decay. — Devans99

What causes "the juggling"? And how does that - distinct from anything else - "cause ... particles to be emitted"?

It seems that God exists outside spacetime and choose the parameters of spacetime and then created spacetime. So the argument is not circular. — Devans99

Yeah, like Earth "seems" flat and at the center of the cosmos. :roll:

"Outside spacetime" - location - presupposes spacetime, which like north of the north pole, is nonsense.

What causes "the juggling"? And how does that - distinct from anything else - "cause ... particles to be emitted"? — 180 Proof

The particles in the nucleus are always moving around - I'm no quantum physicist, but I guess it is the interplay of strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force that causes this. Radioactive nucleus's are unstable, so then sometimes something gets ejected from the nucleus.

Apart from causality, then the only other possible explanation for 'stuff happening' seems to be true randomness. But we've never managed to crack randomness - it seems impossible mathematically and impossible to generate on a computer.

My suspicion is that true randomness is impossible. The things that we associate with randomness are actually caused by phenomena - but in ways we cannot predict theoretically - so they are not truly random, they just appear that way.

... but I guess ...

... seems to be ...

My suspicion ...

... they just appear that way. — Devans99

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: