I agree that the question is not presentable in a way that it can be answered philosophically. But it is a philosophical question by dint of being an existential issue for all humanity. If it is swept away by way of being invalid, or something like that then philosophy will be incomplete, while staring at an estranged elephant in the room.

It's a pseudo-question (lacks specificity, parameters, etc for determining what would count as correct answers) for starters.

But the question remains, whatever a philosopher says. What you say, is evidence that philosophy can't answer, or address the question, not that the question is invalid.

You see, what God means to people amounts to more than the domain of the intellect. There is lived experience, events and agency involved. As such a theist is engaged in real/lived events, things inaccessible to the intellect, or intellectual analysis, because this analysis is limited, as the intellect is limited.

The intellect is primitive in comparison to the nature in to which it was recently born.

Does he even know that his term ends 20th Jan even if there's no election?

I'm sure he doesn't.
Next he'll be saying that he can enact emergency powers to extend his rule, because if his term ends, who's going to run the country?

Shit, yeah, the population might commit mass voter fraud and elect someone inappropriate for president. Thank God for a stable genius pointing that out.

Belief in what, exactly, may I ask. I suspect belief in the material existence of. But there is also belief as belief - the Christian Creed at least. "We believe...". Going around saying God exists is ignorance in action, in terms of being a Christian - also a heresy.

Belief in God as presented in the human body of teaching. If one were to take all the gods believed in by people and distill it down to the essence in common between them. Any precise definition is an irrelevance for me. You see I see humanity very much in the sense of as one person subdivided into millions of individuals, we are the same, like clones. So what we think and believe is the same, with different accents. When one starts to analyse what we think and believe as in philosophy, or psychology, we are attempting to hold ourselves outside this being/person and look in from outside. I suggest that this analysis can distort our understanding of these beliefs and ideas and that philosophers and psychologists ought to seek a rounded perspective rather than a radical one, or they might retreat into their own little world.

Anyway you won't become embroiled in a struggle over the definition of God, or the existence of the supernatural with me, because I have reduced the issue to two clear positions for the/any answer given by one of these individuals is of little importance. The positions are;

Is our origin in a happenstance of dust, or a Shakespeare puts it, a "quintessence of dust".

Or is our origin by design, presuming some creator of some kind, which does not need to be defined.

So which is it?

It is self evident to me that philosophy cannot answer this question and that it is both the greatest puzzle in the predicament of mankind, while also beings his/her Achilles heal.

Perhaps this is a game of exposing weaknesses in the positions of others, while acknowledging the validity of the differing positions, where they have been adopted, to the adoptee.

Mine is more like an astrolabe in which I fine tune the orientation for the purposes of a particular path of enquiry, while entertaining the presence of g/God, from a stance in which the existence, or not of said God is irrelevant. I threw belief out a long time ago.

Are you concluding that universal, or absolute time is a product of the Big Bang event? Because that is the only logical conclusion from your position.

Or in other words you are saying there is, there cannot be, any other existence than the products of the Big Bang event. How do you know this?

Apparently, "it can't be answered" By You; many many, however, have answered the g/G-question intelligently either way, some even have conclusively (i.e. soundly - though no theist or deist has yet).

I meant philosophically, many have answered it by other means.

Besides, the nature of nature itself, I think the very nature of human reason and human agency (re: integrity, dignity) depends on answering this singular question, and then living with that answer if it's "yes" or living with the question if the answer is "no".

It can't be answered (it is a bit more complicated than that*), also all those things that you say depend on it, only matter if one is a materialist, or a scientismist.


* you end up with a discussion of, if g/God appeared before you, could you still answer the question, or can g/God answer it for you (to which I would suggest no). Because you will already have concluded that if g/God doesn't appear before you there is no way to answer the question in the negative, an answer of no.

But this is contradictory, and that's the point- causes precede their effects (i.e. temporally), so if you're trying to talk about the cause or origin of the Big Bang- so, divine creation for instance- then you're talking about "events back in time from the singularity"

I'm not doing that, what I am talking about is any processes involved in the origin of the Big Bang. This does not necessitate a prior event, it is an enquiry into how it originated. The means by which it originated might not be temporal, or spatial, or might involve separate temporal, or spatial events. Separate from the contents of the Big Bang event.

. But that's nonsense, as far as our best current picture of the early universe goes, the singularity at t=0 is like someone took a cosmic hole-puncher and just cut out a hole in the timeline of the universe.

Its only nonsense if you make the assumption that universal, or absolute time originated in the Big Bang we see before us. Are you making that assumption?

We can't extend causality, temporal relations, geodesics, or anything through that point- you can't pass go, you can't collect $200,

Science can't (this is not a scientific discussion).

until we know how gravity operates on the quantum scale we're just spitting goobledeegook.

Yes close the discussion down, nothing to see here.

Even scientists speculate about this stuff, are they spouting gobbledegook?

Well, once you figure out precisely how we can meaningfully extend talk of temporal or causal relations backwards in time to/past the Big Bang singularity, you let us know. Until then your optimism that we can do so, somehow, some way, doesn't amount to much.

But I'm not talking about events back in time from the singularity, I'm talking about its origin, or the existence of other singularities, or other things which are not products of the singularity we find ourselves in.

So the origin might be in a substance, nothing, or some existing state, which results in Big Bang events. Which is your preference?

Regarding other singularities, or other things which are not products of the singularity. There might be a spectrum of Big Bang events. There may be other entirely different places, forms of existence. You are now going to have to tell me why we as philosophers can't discuss these possibilities in the light of empirical evidence found in our world?

and the longest government shutdown in American history.

The new normal (well until November at least).

Well, actually, yes you can.

No you can't because we have an example of something that exists and can be discussed, the universe which originated in the Big Bang. If we can talk about that one, then we can talk about other ones, or other types of them, or something else. Certainly something which is evidenced in this universe and might be present in another.

Whether time genuinely originated at the Big Bang (a legitimate possibility) or our ability to meaningful posit or understand cause/effect relationships merely breaks down at that point as an artifact of theory

What breaks down is the maths and physics, not philosophical questions about origins, or other things.

The word of interest here is "meaningful", philosophically we can consider things which science can't, because science is only concerned with hard evidence. Philosophy can recognise the role of meaning in understanding ideas and speculate on realities which may only be indicated by evidence.

"before the Big Bang" is not something that we can meaningfully speak to. And as Banno and others have pointed out, its comparable to talking about "north of the North Pole" in that trying to extend talk of temporal or causal relations past the Big Bang singularity is undefined- nonsense,

As I said, it's only nonsense when one is referring to some event of the contents, or products of the Big Bang as prior to the event itself. Something which is self evident and I agree with (well except for a notional undefined substance, or state, which did the exploding).

Now there might be another Big Bang with a different signature or universe and nature. Tell me I'm wrong to say that?

word salad- given everything we currently know and lacking an adequate theory for situations where gravitation dominates on the quantum scale (as in the Big Bang and the interior of black holes).

Talk about word salad.
Anyway, just because we don't have a scientifically rigorous understanding of the processes involved in the Big Bang, doesn't mean that we can't refer to one, or its contents.

For example I suggest that just like there are large numbers of atoms in our world, there may be large numbers of Big Bang events, in formations, as there are formations of atoms in our world. What's wrong with that?

I agree it's immaterial if the science and the maths break down at the singularity. But you can't just stop at the singularity and say things like there is no before, or prior state for example. Or claim that such considerations are illogical, or incoherent.

Let's break this down a little.

The problem with the insistence that there is no before the Big Bang is that it is in reference to any before's in relation to the spacetime resulting from the Big Bang. In which case it is a valid argument. But it ignores any other states not of a result of the Big Bang. For example some other Big Bang, or some other unknown state/s in which the Big Bang originated.

The problem with both the claim that it is incoherent, or illogical is the same issue, it is only in reference to spacetime resulting to the Big Bang. It is perfectly rational to consider other states not as a result of the Big Bang. Because logic does not exclude the existence of other states, only that these other states are entailed in the Big Bang. For example it is problematic to make any claims about a God being involved in the Big Bang, because the Big Bang and the resultant universe appears to be an independent self autonomous entity encapsulating its own space and time and material. Such that for the God to have any involvement in its processes would violate the laws of nature within.


As an aside, there is a bigger problem for your side of the argument than the issue of the origin of physical material described by science. It is to do with the ground of physical material and the way in which events are orchestrated in time as we experience it and the nature of sentient beings. While we have no idea of the nature of the ground of the physical reality, or of being, we really are in ignorance.
For example is the ground some unknown cosmic dance between big bangs and black holes and nothing else, or is the ground some kind of artificial stage for the expression of being generated by highly advanced beings? Or is it some kind of dream of a God, or an unknown cosmic creature.
We really are ignorant regarding the grounds of existence.

There's something other than everything...? Odd. :)

I don't think we can discuss everything, because we can only know things in our vicinity ( the known universe) and of that only what we can detect.

supernatural magic —,

literally a non-explanation.

It might be a problem if I try to explain something, but I'm not, I'm accepting the truth of our predicament.

Every posited god that has things of utmost importance to tell all mankind (perhaps like worship, perhaps the importance of whichever religious scriptures) has failed (not almighty) or is deceptive (not omnibenevolent).

I put that down to human frailty. Also we can't determine what events might have been influenced by Gods, should they exist.

Do we always strand on "the unknowable", "the ineffable" or some such (by way of Sagan's procedure)?

I am sure we stand on solid ground ( metaphorically), but that we are unaware of that ground, or its nature, we are ignorant of the truth of our origins. Sagan's procedure is only applicable when a theist makes claims about divinity.

What do you believe "explains our origins" requires or entails?

I try to distance my thinking from belief. I sense that I know something, but not really due to thinking as such, but through living. I can't answer your question though.

Well, that's just wrong.

Not at all, it's just facing facts. Which is that the material we see before us is constituted in that way (as documented by science), not as to its, or our origins.

what remains unexplained?

Whether our origins are a happenstance of dust (which itself fails to explain it), or our origins lie in some other means like idealism for example.

SO on one side we have general relativity an the observation that the universe is expanding, leading directly to the mathematics of the big bang, together with the various interpretations...

None of that explains our origins, all it does is describe the world we find ourselves in.
So yes " "it's all smoke and mirrors" ".

I'm not seeing a point to this discussion.

Cool, I'm just pointing out that what science (including math), or scientism has determined cannot be used as a justification for atheism, or as an argument against theism (unless the theist is relying on it for their argument).

Sure

So everything came into existence when everything exploded.

So it's everything all the way down?

Everything.

All at once?

More smoke and mirrors.

...and that is nothing like an argument.

So tell me, what exploded in the Big Bang? Or was it Nothing that did I it?

"nothing to see here"
— Punshhh
Indeed.

Therefore no God.

Again, nothing to see here.

↪opt-ae So, think on the question: What is south of the South Pole?

"South" starts at the pole.

""before" starts at the big bang.

This is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors sleight of hand to convince believers in scientism that scientism has the big questions answered and that it is irrational to delve any deeper into them.

"nothing to see here"

Boris doesn't want the UK to dissolve.

Yes, but because he is so incompetent that he will cause the break up of the UK. If you watch him campaigning in Scotland today, whenever he opens his mouth he insults them and drives them towards independence.

Putin is laughing at him and the stupidity of the British people who are doing his work for him.

Yes, I can imagine that Russia exerts pressure on the governance of Finland.

It is curious though in the UK that the obvious goal of Putin in influencing UK politics is to divide it from Europe and break up the Union of the United Kingdom. All part of his anti EU strategy. And that this strategy alines with the goal of the UK government, which is to leave the EU, to snub the EU in the process and inadvertently break up the United Kingdom.

Boris and Putin have the same goals, it's like he is a puppet.

Is Johnson, the UK prime minister, in the pocket of the Russians? He and his conservative colleagues have been hobnobbing with oligarchs for years and when he won the UK election in December, he went for a long weekend party at the house of an oligarch who used to be an officer in the KGB, in Italy to celebrate.

The problems is if Trump supporters wear a mask they are wearing a badge that they are admitting his weakness. If he is in denial they have to be too and wearing a mask betrays that stance.

Well, you said that this was an attribute God has, so God is a creator. He might be other things, but if he is all things, we're back to square one.

Ah, so saying God would be equivalent to saying nature, I see what you mean. I can only see the relevance of this line of reasoning were I to claim to know, or define God, I'm not doing that. I'm trying to discuss any real God which may be involved in our origins. As opposed to any God understood, or defined through the history of human thought. I know that this might be a difficult prospect, but it is what I am concerned with.

In this endeavour, the first conclusion I have arrived at is what I have just pointed out to Enai De A Lukal, that there is no way we as limited minds can answer the question philosophically. So we have to look elsewhere.

I said what you have now confirmed you said- that you believe God exists and that your own existence is evidence of this

Actually, I said should God exist, my existence and the existence of the world I live in is evidence of this.

I'm not commenting on my beliefs. I have adopted a philosophical position for the purposes of discussion. So as to point out that there is no way we as limited minds can prove, disprove, or determine in any way whether God exists. Or in other words whether our origins are magical/supernatural/of spirit, or some other, dreamt up, so called materialist explanation.

The world simply doesn't look like what we'd expect, if something like the deity of western monotheistic traditions (especially the Christian Bible) existed- so creation ex nihilo, a moral world order, immortal souls, and all the rest- and looks an awful lot like we'd expect if it was not created by a moral personal agent.

The reasons, or arguments you give are actually irrelevant because we don't have a "control" (a known example of a universe not created by a God) to compare it with. I am happy to explain this further, if you can't see the working.

We can hold the world to ransom and make Britain great again.

I can't decide if I'm being trolled or not. You said: "My evidence for the existence of God is my existence".

I think you are over interpreting what I said, I have at no point said I can prove the existence of God, only that I can provide evidence of God, should God exist. The problem being that we can't determine in anyway whether God exists, or not, philosophically.

Enai De A Lukal, I think he's implying that God is the necessary ground of all existence, so since he knows that he himself exists, that is proof of God's existence.

You put it so eloquently I thought I would use it to define my position by changing it a little;

That if God is the necessary ground of all existence, so since he knows that he himself exists, that is Bona fide evidence of God, should God exist.

So I'm not saying I can prove that God exists, but rather I can provide sufficient evidence of a God should God exist.

So if God exists, then I have provided a good evidence of it. However if God doesn't exist there is no way we can determine that my evidence is false. Whatever arguments we bring to the table we are necessarily none the wiser as to the existence of God.

The upshot of this is that the theist can't prove the existence of God, or further their case philosophically. But also that the atheist, or God denier, can't disprove the existence of God, or further their assertion that God doesn't exist. So we are left with a 50:50 outcome.

Can anyone provide evidence that God doesn't exist?

Theism = the position/belief that God exists. So, yeah, that's what you said. And that wasn't the part that was a problem, obviously.

But I'm not adopting those positions, I'm saying that were there evidence of a God, myself, or "the world" I inhabit is an excellent piece of evidence of that reality.

Indeed it is such a strong piece of evidence that I would require a thorough explanation of my origins coming about by some other means, for me to change my mind on this.

You miss a relevant point — it's not about whatever I don't know, it's about the claims of those that pretend they do, without which a good lot such discussions wouldn't have come about in the first place.

This is a possible weakness in my position, but actually my position is quite different to what one might expect here. My position is, as I stated initially, that anything a human mind, or a number of human minds in discussion may say, or conclude on this issue is irrelevant to the reality of our situation. The reality is unknown, when I say God I am referring to any real God which was/is involved.

Or another way to view it is, on the assumption that we don't know, or are unable to determine if we can know, the means of our origins (so all bets are off). What can we say about the real, or actual means of our origins? Is there a G/god involved, or if not, what is the alternative?

Ok, but there is an implicit assumption here: That "God" is the creator, and not some other player in the world. That's not something you got from observing the world. That's you defining a term.

Can you give me your reasoning that God can't be both the creator and some other player in the world? It isn't an assumption I have made.

Evidence could be anything. You show, we take a look.

I gave you my evidence in my last reply to you.

Evidence of ... what exactly?

You may have noticed by now, I am saying that we as human minds can't determine what exactly, with any philosophical rigour.

How could I possibly exist without God bringing me into existence?
— Punshhh

This was a question, not an assertion, or an assumption. Care to answer it?

How is that an attribute?

It is the ability to bring me and/or the world in which I live, into existence.

For example?

The creation/provision of a world for me to live in.

So... that's supposed to be better? I think there might be a few missing assumptions...

Possibly, I might not be aware what hidden assumptions I'm making. I noticed you referred to baggage, I agree about that.

Yet your response goes ahead and presupposes "Him" anyway. :confused:

looks like you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying God exists, but rather we can't answer the question using philosophy.

Using intellect? † Let's also go by evidence.

I am referring to the intellect in the way it is used to answer unanswerable questions. Regarding the evidence, how does one distinguish evidence from that which is not evidence? As I said to Enai De A Lucil, the fact that I exist is evidence of the existence of God. How could I possibly exist without God bringing me into existence?