Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I know, I saw that, and I already asked about this part:
Why? Why does a universe that contains intelligence and love require a loving intelligent creator? You didn't respond to my post to you, like so many others.
basic laws of cause and affect. Also logic itself. Say I make a cake with various colors. I want to make a golf scene. Well that requires blue and yellow die mixed. So the person who created that cake, has to have absolute control over the ingredients of the cake. They must have blue and yellow die. It is impossible for a cake to have green, if the baker did not also have the blue and yellow that make up the green.
That would mean that everything that exists is eternal then, right? If God exists, then He created the universe by reordering already existing ingredients, yes?
I would not know His methods. I don't think they are knowable. From my perspective, all that existed was God. And in order to show Love, He created a universe in which He could create a race of humans, in order to Love. Ultimately this race of free will agents, could choose to follow Him or reject Him. Those who followed Him, He ultimately likened to a bride. A bride that He would ultimately marry and share in all the wonders of Creation with that Bride. This story is not my own, but is the story put out by the bible. I think logically it is the only one that makes sense. Why would a God create a universe at all, why create a race of evil men? It does not make sense. If I were God I would not even do it. It's just a heart breaking excersize to create something that does not like you in the least. But if it were to find a Bride, then I could see the purpose of patience, love, kindness, grace. Etc. You are desiring that the created race, fall in love with you. And that would be how you would do that. It's a divine romance. But just to say a multiverse created our universe, well then one would need to prove that love, intelligence, patience, etc. exists inside the multiverse, where God by definition contains all that because He is God. It's the only answer that makes logical sense.
Strikes me that this logic also entails that 'evil' resides in God ... at least for those that hold that evil is a thing.
If the answer to my question is unknowable, I'm not understanding how you're making an argument that qualities such as love and intelligence must be part of the creative force behind the universe.
I could postulate and speculate a lot of different reasons for an intelligent creator to create, but we're trying to ascertain whether the creator of the universe has intelligence or emotions at all to begin with. You're skipping ahead a bit here.
bad traits are not positives. Evil for example is lack of good. So yes God has all of the positive traits we have, and we can attribute all of the good in the universe to having it's source in God. All of the evil, on the other hand, is a lack of Good, and a lack of God.
No I know that God has all the attributes of the universe, because a universe cannot have a quality that the creator does not have. That's irrational and impossible, but you asked specifically if all things in the universe were eternal, and I would not know the answer to that specific question.
so to deny cause and effect in the universe you must believe positive qualities in the universe spontaneously generate by themself. For example is it more rational to believe intelligence was inherent in the creator, or is it more rational that immaterial substance, rock, water, gases, meteor's etc, some how, somewhere evolved intelligence out of thin air? I postulate the chances of evolving intelligence from a rock for example, is slim to none. However the chances of the universe being caused by an intelligent being for example, is very great.
As an example, time is an attribute of the universe, but you believe God is "timeless", correct? If so, it isn't irrational to think that attributes can be part of the universe and not part of the creator.
I don't think it's possible to calculate those chances. I'm not making the claim that I know who or what created the universe, I'm just trying to get at what's possible. Do you agree that, although you believe the chances are vanishingly slim, intelligence can arise from ordinary matter and energy? Or do you have a deductive argument why this is impossible?
So you admit that there are traits the universe has that its cause/creator does not have. Why, then, should the cause of the universe have any traits in common with the universe at all?
I can install a software program on my computer, that does not mean I am software. While yes all the positive attributes, that can't evolve out of thin air need to have originated in the creator, things like time, only apply to those things that have mass. God who is mass-less, does not need to be susceptible to time. God supersedes space time. When I install oil in my car, it does not mean I am oil. I supersede oil. I rule over oil, I can manipulate oil. Because oil is not me. Time is a part of the universe, but not a part of God. The same way oil is part of a tune up, but not part of the mechanic. To believe God is part of the creation is something called pantheism. And I don't adhere to that. That would make God evil, in my mind because there is evil in the universe. To me pantheism corrupts the goodness of God, we have sinful flesh yes, but for pantheism to exist, God must be part of the flesh of evil man. You can deny the flesh like Jesus did, but for pantheism to work, God must be in the flesh of sinful man as well. I believe in theism, which believes a transcendent being created the universe, this allows God to be supremely Good and set apart from corruption of the universe, that may contain evil.
there is no logical reason why anyone should believe intelligence was caused out of thin air. The information within a single human cell fills volumes of books when written out. That information was written by something. SETI, a government organization searches outerspace 24/7 for messages of information. And nothing ever comes. There is no source of information. Information is here, but we don't know where it came from. Logic dictates that something intelligent must have created the information. When you write a book, you are more intelligent than the material in the book. There is no possible way for a meteor for example to learn information, or relay that information. Or a comet, or a star, or a galaxy.
I answered this in my last post, please reply to it. If you have any other questions, please reply to that post.
That’s a wonderful assertion. How will you ever support it? You’re running up a huge tab of unsupported claims so far:
D is supported by the laws of cause and effect, and E is supported by E=MC squared. General relativity. C is supported as the only logical choice. Say a mechanic a painter and a plumber all stood side by side a painting looking similar to the mona lisa. Which candidate makes logical sense? The mechanic? The plumber? Or the painter? Logically the painter would be the creator of the mona lisa. The plumber making such a masterpiece does not make logical sense, nor a mechanic. The point is that a masterpiece is painted by a painter. Not a mechanic. Similarly a multiverse creating intelligence does not make logical sense. But again most don't expect atheists to prove their claims, only religious people. But everyone should prove everything, and if they can't. Admit they live a faith filled life.
How do you decide which attributes must be a facet of the creative force behind the universe and which ones don't? You've said that God must be timeless because He created time, but that He must be intelligent because intelligence exists. It seems contradictory to me. Can you explain how you decide which attributes work in which direction?
I don't have a burden of proof, by the way. I say, "I don't know". You claim to know, so you and you alone have the burden here.
Again, you’re giving your opinion but no actual support for it. What are the laws of cause and effect and can you demonstrate that they apply universally? What does E=MC^2 have to do with anything here? Einstein certainly didn’t share your view. C is nothing more than your opinion, and as I warned you earlier, you absolutely cannot demonstrate that there are no other logical alternatives. If it were that simple we wouldn’t be here talking about it.
I have provided to examples of evidence, general relativity requires mass to be present to have time, and the laws of cause and effect, which scientists use, I will provide a link later.
I would recommend you look some of this stuff up, it's real easy. And I believe you know the laws of cause and effect. This link talks about how hard it is to prove causation, but at the same time admits all scientists use laws of cause and effect. https://explorable.com/cause-and-effect
I don't think laws of cause and effect would be limited to our universe. I believe they would apply to anything with a finite past.
I already addressed this.
I agree, but you don't agree with Einstein either:
that sir is a fallacy of proving a negative. It is impossible for anyone to prove the absence of anything. It's a fallacy of proving a negative. Rather the burden lies on you to prove a single alternative, and you can't.
yes, I know. You can't prove a single alternative to the universe, that works and has evidence.
this scholarly essay uses all sorts of arguments from analogy Argument by Analogy Who told you that is actually a real fallacy? Wikipedia? My friend joe who is 24 put up a page for his high school teacher that he won the revolutionary war on wikipedia. It was up for 3 months before being taken down. No one even questioned it. So I would try to find a source other than wikipedia. Yes I have been guilty of using it too, but usually not for technical, health, or scientific stuff.
you believe a multiverse created the known universe, isn't the multiverse a creator?
Every premise I give, I support with evidence, and every premise supports my conclusion.
So if there is no mass in the universe, there is no time, and if there is no time, there is no causality, and if there is no causality, the mass in the universe need not have had a cause. Cause and effect, by your logic, were born with time and mass. Time and mass needn’t have been caused any more than causality itself need have been caused. That argument is self-defeating.
Of course I know these things. When I ask you something, it’s not for my edification, it’s to get you to explain in your own words what something means so I can see what your understanding of it is. So you admit you can’t prove causation and yet you want to place God as the cause for something that we don’t even know for sure had a cause. Good to know.
This is completely irrelevant, but what exactly am I supposed to disagree with here?
I don’t have to prove any alternative. You have to prove that there are no logically possible alternatives because you’re the one making that claim. That’s the burden of proof you took on when you made the argument that God was the only logical option. I’m sorry you’ve chosen to make an argument that requires you to meet an impossible burden of proof, but I’m not going to let you stand there and make your claims unchallenged just because it’s impossible for you to demonstrate the things you’re saying.
Ah, so the alternatives have to work and have evidence, but yours doesn’t! The lack of evidence for the others works as evidence for yours? That’s hilariously asinine. I could use that same argument on any of the unsupported alternatives just as easily. Do you really not see the problem?
Ok, I should have said “weak analogy,” not argument by analogy. My mistake, but still your fallacy. But why are you going on about Wikipedia? You committed argument by weak analogy, now either own it or explain why it doesn’t apply to your argument. I already explained why it does.
Stop trying to tell me what I believe. I’ve already told you I don’t know. The multiverse was brought up as just a single possibility. If something about the multiverse were responsible for the emergence of this local-presentation universe, I guess in some abstract sense you could call the multiverse a creator, but only in the same sense that you could call boiling water a creator of bubbles.
But what constitutes evidence?
Evil is not a thing, evil is a negative value or lack of something that should be there.
