Why does the universe need an original cause rooted in supernatural creators?

Why does the universe need an original cause rooted in supernatural creators? — ToothyMaw

Because laws of nature can't create themselves.

Why couldn't the laws of nature have been eternal and have given rise to the universe?

Why isn't anyone even addressing the original part of my argument? — ToothyMaw

Because it's tantamount to asking whether a circle can be squared.

Is the premise that controversial?

The answer to 'whether or not "God" can "divest" itself of its "omnipotence"' amounts to a distinction that makes no difference so long as your conception of "omnipotence" admits of logical impossibility / self-contradiction (i.e. magical thinking). Not "controversial", but conceptually incoherent; thus, I proffered a coherent alternative ... which you've petulantly rejected. :sweat:

On the contrary, the OP exemplifies magical thinking and defense of it in the face of a rationally speculative alternative amounts to proselytizing. Good job, Toothless. :ok:

They in fact are. But there is an intelligence needed to bring that eternal infinity into existence. The laws themselves are to dumb for that.

Because it's tantamount to asking whether a circle can be squared. — 180 Proof

A circle can in fact be squared. Take four points between thumb and finger, and stretch the curved lines straight. Now that's philosophy!

The answer to 'whether or not "God" can "divest" itself of its "omniscience"' amounts to a distinction that makes no difference so long as your conception of "omniscience" admits of logical impossibility / self-contradiction — 180 Proof

But it doesn't. If you were reading the posts and read the OP you would see that I don't think God can do something logically impossible. You are being very stupid for someone with such a great vocabulary.

You are being very stupid for someone with such a great vocabulary. — ToothyMaw

Ha! :up:

I know people who have experienced God's presence in their lives. My wife has. I have heard of many others. — T Clark

So do I, members of my family included; and yet ...

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. — Freddy Zarathustra

:fire:

Where did I say or imply that a circle cannot be squared? No, son, that's just trolling, not "philosophy".

You are being very stupid for someone with such a great vocabulary. — ToothyMaw

Another illiterate who cannot read what I wrote. :roll: Where the fuck did all of you D-Kers come from?!

Maybe there is an element of randomness that brought the laws into existence, or is baked into the laws that could give rise to the universe? I'm no physicist, or even a philosopher, so I'm kind of pulling this out of my ass.

Likening religiosity to mental illness is taking it a little too far. And since when is mental illness characterized as having faith? Where is the connection there? Do you even know a mentally ill or religious person?

Nietzsche's been dead for 122 years, too bad you can't ask him. :roll: :pray:

Do you even know a mentally ill or religious person?

Besides earning a graduate degree in cognitive psychology, I had an ex-gf who killed herself from bipolar disorder, and my retired, psychiatric nurse mother is probably the most devoutly religious person I've known (besides the priests & nuns who taught me from elementary school through high school), so G-F-Y, kid.

Likening religiosity to mental illness is taking it a little too far. — ToothyMaw

It's an aphorism - it's not meant to be taken as a law of physics.

Incidentally, I have often worked in psychiatric hospitals (on and off for decades) and have met dozens of dozens of people who hear God's commands, and feel the presence of divinity every day and talk to Krishna or even claim to be God, Moroni or Jesus in the flesh. Mental illness often expresses itself in religious terms.

Mental illness often expresses itself in religious terms. — Tom Storm

:100:

Maybe there is an element of randomness that brought the laws into existence, — ToothyMaw

In fact there is. Every new big bang spawns a different universe. But where does the element of randomness come from? If all gaps are closed, what else can be concluded than gods created it? There are gods of the gaps but also gods after the gaps. Not filling the gaps but creating the stuff we have gaps about.

Why the fuck does that garner a :100: ? You come across as a genuine sociopath, 180. I'm done with you. Shit all over this thread if you want, you'll be getting no more attention from me.

It's an aphorism - it's not meant to be taken as a law of physics — Tom Storm

Thinking about laws of physics is often a sign of mental illness. As an aphorism, that is.

:rofl: :up:

lmao

Thinking about laws of physics is often a sign of mental illness. — EugeneW

Especially flights of fancy about God proven by Quantum Mechanics. :joke:

Maybe it's all farted in existence accidentally. The farter apologized to their fellow gods for that... "prrrrr... bang!" "Sorry guys!"

Especially flights of fancy about God proven by Quantum Mechanics — Tom Storm

Ha! It's God luring behind the wavefunction...

What was your question again?

So do I, members of my family included; and yet ...
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
— Freddy Zarathustra — 180 Proof

You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence. Now, if we wanted, we could discuss the quality of that evidence. That's not what I'm interested in. As far as I'm concerned, just establishing that there is evidence is all I need to do. You indicated that is what you required. You wrote "I can't consider something "good evidence" (or not good) when there isn't any evidence given (by you et al) to consider."

You don't discern, or accept, there is a significant difference between evidence (i.e. fact) and anecdote (i.e. opinion)? The latter is subjective and the former is, at minimum, intersubjective. In what way, TC, is your wife's or my mother's "experience of God's presence" intersubjective (i.e. publicly accessible)?

arner a :100: ? You come across as a genuine sociopath, 180. I'm done with you. Shit all over this thread if you want, you'll be getting no more attention from me — ToothyMaw

What they mean is mental illness, mostly schizophrenia, but often manifests itself with religious symbology and themes. I dont think they meant religiosity is a mental illness, nor saying religious people are mentally ill.
I mention it because “sociopath” seems a pretty drastic take on the comment.

You don't discern, or accept, there is a significant difference between evidence (i.e. fact) and anecdote (i.e. opinion)? The latter is subjective and the former is, at minimum, intersubjective. In what way, TC, is your wife's or my mother's "experience God's presence" intersubjective (i.e. publicly accessible)? — 180 Proof

I'm on the witness stand, you're on the jury. I say "I saw the defendant shoot Joe Smith. No one else was there, so no one else saw it." Is that evidence? Of course. Is it good evidence? That depends. Is my testimony convincing? Do I have any reason to lie? Do I have good eyesight? Am I trustworthy?

'Eyewitness testimony' is notoriously unreliable – uncorroborated it's only an opinion. Anyway, the context here is epistemological and neither forensic nor psychological, so try not to shift the goal posts again.

:up:

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable – uncorroborated it's only an opinion. Anyway, the context here is epistemological and neither forensic nor psychological, so try not to shift the goal posts again. — 180 Proof

Now you're just playing games. What a shoddy argument. Nuff said.

Nuff said. — T Clark

Well I guess so, seeing as you cannot, with any intellectual integrity, answer this

In what way, TC, is your wife's or my mother's "experience of God's presence" intersubjective (i.e. publicly accessible)? — 180 Proof