What convinced you the universe alone is all that exists?

[Paulomycin]

There were only two negatives in total. I still refuse to believe you can't read a simply constructed sentence. Maybe-the dashes confused-you...

Please do me a huge favor and just re-word your point as a statement. Please? I'll owe you one. How's that?

 

[Bradskii]

Please do me a huge favor and just re-word your point as a statement. Please? I'll owe you one. How's that?

This ain't a primary school lesson in basic comprehension. Thanks for making the effort (but I'm giving you an F-).

 

[Paulomycin]

This ain't a primary school lesson in basic comprehension. Thanks for making the effort (but I'm giving you an F-).

Oh, so you don't really care about making your point understood. Good to know.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh, so you don't really care about making your point understood. Good to know.

Strike 2.

 

[Paulomycin]

Strike 2.

This discussion is on two completely different threads, you know.

 

[Bradskii]

This discussion is on two completely different threads, you know.

I don't care which thread you are batting on. Two strike rule is now current. You're out!

 

[Paulomycin]

I don't care which thread you are batting on. Two strike rule is now current. You're out!

Does your fake rule mean you've sworn off communicating altogether?

 

[Bradskii]

Does your fake rule mean you've sworn off communicating altogether?

No. You are only called out on any further posts that you deliberately misconstrue, feign ignorance, refuse to answer or answer with nonsensical non sequitors (I may add further compliant requirements as I see fit without notice).

The umpires decision is final and no correspondance will be entered into.

To be a little bit more serious...there are very many interesting people to talk to on this forum. Including, I'm sure, you. But I really can't be arsed chasing you up for umpteen posts trying to get a straightfoward answer. I really can't. My clumsy attempts at witty repartee and not so subtle sarcastic responses only posted as humerous attempts to prompt the conversation can only maintain my interest for a limited time. And time is up.

The rest is up to you, Paul.

 

[Paulomycin]

No. You are only called out on any further posts that you deliberately misconstrue, feign ignorance, refuse to answer or answer with nonsensical non sequitors (I may add further compliant requirements as I see fit without notice).

I really did misunderstand you. I honestly can't even understand what you're ranting about right now. Seriously. I don't even know what question you're referring to.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

"Basic logic" is either an inductive or deductive process. Not vague intuition. Can you further illustrate that process to demonstrate that you actually know what you're talking about?

Or. . .you could just stall some more, and make this look even more awkward.

Why would I want to explain anything to you? My posting is really for other people’s benefit.

 

[Paulomycin]

Why would I want to explain anything to you?

Basic logic. That's why.

My posting is really for other people’s benefit.

I think other people are more than capable of noting the absence of a basic logical process from your side of things.

 

[cvanwey]

So you're appealing to an academic institution like a secular papacy? You believe them because they said so.

Actually, I'm asking if you've asked the folks whom have a much more rigorous and narrow scope of study in this direct field, because I doubt most here have.

Have you? If so, what did they say? And if you disagreed with them, how did they respond? Where you able to walk away feeling they could not address [your] rebuttal?

Some cosmologists may very well suppose that "materialism is all that exists." Have you challenged their ideas? How did that go for you? If evidence and reason prevails, do you feel reason and evidence is on your side of the debate, in this topic? If so, I would like know what it is, because I have not studied this field as much as them, or maybe even you? Are you a cosmologist BTW?

I'm fairly certain there's no need to read-into my OP any further than what I am certain I stated word-for-word.

Kool

 

[Paulomycin]

Actually, I'm asking if you've asked the folks whom have a much more rigorous and narrow scope of study in this direct field, because I doubt most here have.

So now we have to ask them directly face-to-face? We can't simply read their books? None of your "folks" have actually proved ontological naturalism. Nor are they even able to.

Some cosmologists may very well suppose that,"materialism is all that exists." Have you challenged their ideas?

Given the overwhelming number of the "trust me, I'm a real physicist" PhD's on the internet, I've definitely challenged their ideas. Most of them simply don't realize they're conflating science with philosophy. "The universe alone is all that exists," is an epistemic claim; not a scientific one. However, the honest scientists will admit the fact that, while science begins and ends at nature alone, you can't say it's the only category of realty there is. They're more level-headed.

How did that go for you?

I've never been objectively refuted, so I'd say pretty well. Remember, "I'm not convinced" alone and of-itself is never an objective argument.

 

[jayem]

Getting in somewhat late here. I believe matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature are all that exist. I accept it by Ockham’s directive not to multiply entities unnecessarily. I see no need for a supernatural deity. If one believes that some kind of god always existed, why is it so implausible that matter/energy and the fundamental forces have always existed? I can’t rule out the possibility that there could be an as yet unidentified natural force that enables (or maybe acts as a substratum) for matter/energy and the other fundamental forces. But why should I believe that it’s a personal entity that has any awareness of, interest in, or purpose for the material universe, or plays any role in how it operates? To me, the idea of an immanent personal god (or gods) is a product of the human imagination. And is one of good Friar William of Ockham’s unnecessary entities.

 

[Paulomycin]

Getting in somewhat late here. I believe matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature are all that exist. I accept it by Ockham’s directive not to multiply entities unnecessarily.

Matter that has continually multiplied on and on for eternity past would violate Occam's razor. As would any infinitely regressing causal loops. You can't avoid it. Therefore, a prime mover is necessary and would more accurately fit the rule of parsimony. Why? Because it puts a stop to theorizing eternally and unnecessarily regressive entities.

 

[jayem]

Matter that has continually multiplied on and on for eternity past would violate Occam's razor. As would any infinitely regressing causal loops. You can't avoid it. Therefore, a prime mover is necessary and would more accurately fit the rule of parsimony. Why? Because it puts a stop to theorizing eternally and unnecessarily regressive entities.

As I stated, there may be a force which initiates the conversion of energy to matter and acts as a substrate for all further activity, But why would it be anything more than an as yet unrecognized force of nature? Why should I believe it’s a supernatural diety? And more specifically, considering the thousands of supernatural creator gods which human societies have imagined, why would I believe yours is true and correct?

 

[Paulomycin]

As I stated, there may be a force which initiates the conversion of energy to matter and acts as a substrate for all further activity,

Which you have no evidence of. "May be a force" acting as a substrate is, in-fact, so vague that you can't even specify exactly what it is you're even referring to.

This only proves that you're more than willing to rush towards a wholly non-existent speculation on blind-faith, as long as that alternative gets you as far away from "God" as possible.

But why would it be anything more than an as yet unrecognized force of nature?

This then would be reduced to another form of materialism, in which case you've only triggered an infinite regress. Like I said, you can't avoid it.

Why should I believe it’s a supernatural diety? And more specifically, considering the thousands of supernatural creator gods which human societies have imagined, why would I believe yours is true and correct?

Because I only exclusively define "god" as an omnipotent being. I agree with igtheists and ignostics that, "without clear and consistent definitions of what we're discussing, we end up talking past one another incoherently."

Belief in a supra-natural creator is necessary, because it's a scientific fact that our omni is finite and had a beginning.

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking
​

The universe begging the question of its own existence is irrational. Therefore, a rational explanation is necessary.

Proof #1.

Proof #2.

I'm also a fan of the simulation argument as empirical evidence. But evidence and proof are very different. Proof is never subject to the classical Problem of Induction.

 

[jayem]

Which you have no evidence of. "May be a force" acting as a substrate is, in-fact, so vague that you can't even specify exactly what it is you're even referring to.

This only proves that you're more than willing to rush towards a wholly non-existent speculation on blind-faith, as long as that alternative gets you as far away from "God" as possible.

Of course, it’s a speculation. Just as is your assertion of a supernatural “God” as a first cause.

Belief in a supra-natural creator is necessary, because it's a scientific fact that our omni is finite and had a beginning.

Not everyone working in the field accepts that a supra-natural creator is necessary. My training was in medicine. I’m not a physicist or cosmologist I can’t comment on their plausibility, but I know that alternative theories of cosmogony exist.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.amp

God is a speculation, as are models of both a finite and infinite universe. We’re all entitled to believe whatever seems most tenable. Hopefully we can just agree to disagree.

​

 

[Paulomycin]

Of course, it’s a speculation. Just as is your assertion of a supernatural “God” as a first cause.

Then where's your deductive proof? Oh wait, you have none. So it's a false comparison.
Where's your definitions and specifics? Oh wait, you have none. So it's a false comparison.

Not everyone working in the field accepts that a supra-natural creator is necessary.

Based on subjective will; not evidence. Evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective.

My training was in medicine. I’m not a physicist or cosmologist I can’t comment on their plausibility, but I know that alternative theories of cosmogony exist.

So you conclude they're either (a.) true or (b.) equal to all other theories. Got it.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.amp

2015? Wow, you are late to the party.

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine

God is a speculation,

Why do you need to push the faux-certainty so hard? You know you're not absolutely certain of this. So why fake it? There's been proof of God for over 700 years. Public schools simply ignored it, is all.

as are models of both a finite and infinite universe.

So you don't believe steady state has been falsified. I'm sorry, but that's scientifically regressive.

We’re all entitled to believe whatever seems most tenable.

But we're not entitled to our own facts.

 

[Amoranemix]

[1] I doubt it is illogical in even one way. How are these points you present supposed to make something creating itself be illogical ?

My points don't make something illogical. They are or they are not illogical on their own. You have a strange way of seeing reality. (1) A thing cannot cause itself to exist. It is self-contradictory, because a non-existent thing cannot cause. It cannot spontaneously begin to exist. That is nonsense.[2] (2) A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused. The 'infinitesimal speck' from which the BB proceeded was mechanical fact, and on top of everything else one might say about it, bears the evidences of being acted upon or produced (created) with purpose/ design since it obviously resulted in specificity and not homogeneity.[3] There is no more reason to say specificity results by chance or randomness, than there is to say that chance or randomness can cause anything. This too is self-contradictory.

[2] These are three bald assertions. I would ask you to prove them if they weren't off topic.

You appear to reason as follows :
P1. I don't know how something could cause itself to exist.
P2. It would be covenient for my faith if nothing could cause itself to exist.
C. Therefore, it is impossible for something to cause itself to exist.

That argument is invalid. It seems related to the god of the gaps argument.

[3] How so ?

Indeed. It is humans who decide the nature of God. God is an opinion.

If God exists, God is not an opinion.[4] Are you one of those who likes the foggy notion that there are many truths?[5]
But I thought atheists are not supposed to believe there is no God, but rather to fail to believe there is a God. Here you are positing the notion that there is no actual God.[6]

[4] In that case, there would be many gods. The one that exists and those people believe in. The real one would be unlikely to conform to what you will accept or to what (s)he/it has to be according to you.
[5] No.
[6] There atheists who disbelieve there is any god and atheists who disbelieve in specific gods.

I think that what you mean is that we have no examples of something spontaneously begining to exist. And the universe could be eternal and cyclic and so woukdn't require a begining. Kinda difficult to imagine. But then, so are so many things in physics and cosmology.

You are describing infinite regression of cause. Difficult to imagine? Difficult to swallow. In fact, a bit indigestible. 'Repugnant', one might say.

Reality does not care about your aversions.

You are mistaken. You assumed that reality and atheist reality are the same.

HitchSlap claimed they are the same.[7] I'm claiming an exclusively theistic reality.[8] Yours is exclusively secular. And what's worse is that you presuppose it without evidence.[9]

[7] He may have done so, but not in this thread, which is what matters. He did on the other hand deny to presuppose them being the same.
[8] Your zeal to accuse atheists of making claims without supporting them is only surpassed by your eagerness to do so yourself.
[9] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

I have heard rumours of the existence of such proof and have witnessed attempts at presenting such proof, but I have yet to observe such proof.

Because your confirmation bias won't allow it.[10] I understand. Proof is objective; persuasion is subjective.

[10] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Actually, I'm asking if you've asked the folks whom have a much more rigorous and narrow scope of study in this direct field, because I doubt most here have.

I've never been objectively refuted, so I'd say pretty well. Remember, "I'm not convinced" alone and of-itself is never an objective argument.

Has ontological naturalism ever been objectively refuted ?

Getting in somewhat late here. I believe matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature are all that exist. I accept it by Ockham’s directive not to multiply entities unnecessarily.

Matter that has continually multiplied on and on for eternity past would violate Occam's razor.[11] As would any infinitely regressing causal loops.[12] You can't avoid it. Therefore, a prime mover is necessary and would more accurately fit the rule of parsimony. Why? Because it puts a stop to theorizing eternally and unnecessarily regressive entities.[13]

[11] I haven't noticed anyone suggesting that matter has continuously multiplied on and on for eternity past.
[12] How so ? Occam's razor doesn't claim that there cannot be more than one of something. If it did, skeptics would better reject it.
[13] You are assuming that your favourite hypotheses must be true because that would render obsolete the other hypothesis. That reasoning is however fallacious. It could otherwise also be used to render your favourite hypothesis obsolete. The simplest hypothesis that explains the evidence is to be preferred and complexity is not solely determined by the number of instances a hypothesis contains.

As I stated, there may be a force which initiates the conversion of energy to matter and acts as a substrate for all further activity,

Which you have no evidence of. "May be a force" acting as a substrate is, in-fact, so vague that you can't even specify exactly what it is you're even referring to.

Claims of possibility (speculation) require less evidence than claims of fact. The vaguer a claim, the less evidence it requires. If that speculation already requires evidence, then most of your unevidenced claims of fact are woefully undersupported.

Why should I believe it’s a supernatural diety? And more specifically, considering the thousands of supernatural creator gods which human societies have imagined, why would I believe yours is true and correct?

Because I only exclusively define "god" as an omnipotent being. I agree with igtheists and ignostics that, "without clear and consistent definitions of what we're discussing, we end up talking past one another incoherently."

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. Paulomycin's god is by definition omnipotent.
P2. An omnipotent being is necessary to explain the world.
C. Therefore Paulomycin's god exists.

I suspect omniscience is included in your definition of omnipotence.
Further you attempt to demonstrate P1.

If you were to be successful, that would still leave 2 problems. First, it leaves God's morality open. Second, when skeptics refer to the Christian god, they are usually referring to an entity equipped with plenty of religious baggage, like claims found in the Bible. Proving an omniscient, omnipotent being would thus still give no good reason to believe in Yahweh.

Belief in a supra-natural creator is necessary, because it's a scientific fact that our omni is finite and had a beginning.
"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

I assume with omni you mean universe.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – Stephen Hawking

The universe begging the question of its own existence is irrational. Therefore, a rational explanation is necessary.

Proof #1.
Proof #2.

I'm also a fan of the simulation argument as empirical evidence. But evidence and proof are very different. Proof is never subject to the classical Problem of Induction.

Obviously I don't buy your alleged proofs, but criticizing them here would probably lead to too long an off topic discussion. If you post one in its own thread I may find time to challenge it there.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.amp

2015? Wow, you are late to the party.
Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine

Strange. There is no mention of God in those articles about the beginning of the universe.