Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Received]

There is no prior if time doesn't exist, not physically, not logically. If T=0 you are at the first event. I am not sure what is so hard for you to understand.

My skepticism is to you thinking you have narrowed down the metaphysical possibilities because you're not bright enough to think up others.

Logical precedence isn't chronological precedence. That's why it's called logical precedence and not chronological precedence.

An appeal to "common sense" when questioning the very basis of the universe and the possibilities of matter under the most extreme circumstances patently ridiculous.

Nah, it's just admitting the possibilities: a universe that's eternal or one that began. Common sense. You're smokescreening infinite possibilities.

I'm not doubting my own senses, I am doubting your limited metaphysical imagination.

I doubt you have a full enough conception of the physical universe to rule it out and I doubt you have a full enough metaphysical understanding of the universe to limit the possibilities so that only the supernatural is left.

Your pretense at a mastery of these two VERY difficult subjects that NO ONE has a complete understanding of is mind boggling.

I'm sure it is.

 

[Received]

I don't consider myself wrong though, you are basically saying you know the outer limitations of physical things in an environment well outside your experience.

So, you are either happen to be the greatest theoretical physicist on the planet who happens to also be the best philosopher of our time, or you are purely talking out of your anus.

You're not getting me, variant. I'm saying this completely apropos your pointless psychological speculations that have no relevance to argument.

Of course you think you're right. My point is that, well, I don't think you're right, and never think you're right when you attempt to call me out, so any time you try to call me out it's either completely pointless (if your goal is to, I don't know, change my behavior) or because you get turned on by having imaginary power trips through calling people out. That's the pointlessness of calling out and other psychological addendums you've made.

So keep making them. And remember that I'm a therapist and am getting a kick out of all of them, and how much it says about your psyche and your probable interpersonal past.

 

[variant]

Logical precedence isn't chronological precedence. That's why it's called logical precedence and not chronological precedence.

Why does it matter in this case? I'm saying that the timeless thing is both logically and chronologically prior.

Nah, it's just admitting the possibilities: a universe that's eternal or one that began. Common sense. You're smokescreening infinite possibilities.

You attached a lot of other stuff to those two conditions.

You know where you tried to say that if the universe began it had to be started by supernatural things???

I mean I can quote you if you like:

No magic, logic. See previous post about creators and how this means by definition they can't be constituted of the physical stuff like the creation is, which means the necessity for a "supernatural" (i.e., beyond the natural or physical) realm. Which means any standard that utilizes the physical (science, empiricism, etc.) is misplaced when applying to this supposed supernatural entity.

You do indeed seem to make all the claims I seem to remember you making....

I'm sure it is.

And how. It is a mind boggling amount of pretense.

 

[variant]

You're not getting me, variant. I'm saying this completely apropos your pointless psychological speculations that have no relevance to argument.

As I said they are the thesis. There are all these protective layers around your psychological needs, it's fascinating to peel one back and see what pops up next.

Of course you think you're right. My point is that, well, I don't think you're right, and never think you're right when you attempt to call me out, so any time you try to call me out it's either completely pointless (if your goal is to, I don't know, change my behavior) or because you get turned on by having imaginary power trips through calling people out. That's the pointlessness of calling out and other psychological addendums you've made.

I'm not just calling you out for your sake, I understand that you don't listen.

So keep making them. And remember that I'm a therapist and am getting a kick out of all of them, and how much it says about your psyche and your probable interpersonal past.

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.

 

[Received]

As I said they are the thesis. There are all these protective layers around your psychological needs, it's fascinating to peel one back and see what pops up next.

It sure is.

I'm not just calling you out for your sake, I understand that you don't listen.

No, I don't.

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.

Eh, nothing's on Netflix now and I don't feel like reading. So this is third place.

Oh yeah, keep going. I'll even leave space below:







There.

 

[Received]

Why does it matter in this case? I'm saying that the timeless thing is both logically and chronologically prior.

No, the timeless thing isn't chronologically prior. That's why it's called timeless. The universe contains every bit of time imaginable, hence the only way the cause could be a cause is logical precedence, not chronological precedence. Remember, the cause is timeless, not the universe, hence the act of causing by the timeless cause takes up no time, and the moment the universe is caused, whoops, there goes time with it!

You attached a lot of other stuff to those two conditions.

You know where you tried to say that if the universe began it had to be started by supernatural things???

I mean I can quote you if you like:



You do indeed seem to make all the claims I seem to remember you making....

Yeah, they're subpoints to the two possibilities. That's how logic works.

And how. It is a mind boggling amount of pretense.

Your mind is boggled pretty easily.

 

[Deidre32]

I think you are getting frustrated because you thought you could narrow this down so easily.

There are indeed thousands of possible ways that I can imagine a universe starting. Would you like me to start dreaming them up? It will take a few days to give you 1000 imaginary scenarios.



There isn't a logical "before" the start of time, it's the start of time. There isn't a before because time doesn't exist.



How exactly could we tell what is the more "fitting" explanation here?

You have to know everything the physical universe is capable of to define something as supernatural in this case...

Do you know the physical universe is incapable of existing in a timeless state?

No, no you don't.

So, your assertion that there are only those two options is well, false.

This is of course the problem. Since we don't know everything that is possible with physical things we obviously can't conclude the supernatural because there is one event we don't yet have an explanation for.

Defining supernatural as something we don't normally experience, or can't normally experience within the physical universe would make the interior black holes supernatural.

I wish we could 'like' posts here. For this one, I definitely like. Well said.

 

[variant]

No, the timeless thing isn't chronologically prior. That's why it's called timeless. The universe contains every bit of time imaginable, hence the only way the cause could be a cause is logical precedence, not chronological precedence. Remember, the cause is timeless, not the universe, hence the act of causing by the timeless cause takes up no time, and the moment the universe is caused, whoops, there goes time with it!

In this scenario the timeless thing collapses into the universe so time is a byproduct that starts at that given T = 0 rather than a substance required to be in the timeless thing.

Yeah, they're sub-points to the two possibilities. That's how logic works.

I give your logical musings a big fat does not follow.

Your mind is boggled pretty easily.

You've been working hard today.

 

[Received]

In this scenario the timeless thing collapses into the universe so time is a byproduct that starts at that given T = 0 rather than a substance required to be in the timeless thing.

Time isn't a substance. The timeless thing doesn't "collapse into" the universe; its action creates the universe, and the moment of action is itself the moment of the universe being created, at which time exists; prior to which there is the timeless thing and no universe.

I give your logical musings a big fat does not follow.

I give this comment a big fat not surprised.

You've been working hard today.

It comes naturally.

 

[variant]

Time isn't a substance. The timeless thing doesn't "collapse into" the universe; its action creates the universe, and the moment of action is itself the moment of the universe being created, at which time exists; prior to which there is the timeless thing and no universe.

In this scenario the timeless thing isn't separate or separable from the universe, it is the universe in a different form.

 

[Received]

In this scenario the timeless thing isn't separate or separable from the universe, it is the universe in a different form.

How do you reach that conclusion? The reason we say there is a creator is that there is something needed other than the universe for the universe to be created, which means it can't be part of the universe, unless you're saying an author is his story in a different form when he writes one.

 

[variant]

How do you reach that conclusion? The reason we say there is a creator is that there is something needed other than the universe for the universe to be created, which means it can't be part of the universe, unless you're saying an author is his story in a different form when he writes one.

I am giving you a scenario where that is false. This thread of the conversation started with post 182 with me giving you an alternative that did not meet your criterion.

 

[Received]

I am giving you a scenario where that is false. This thread of the conversation started with post 182 with me giving you an alternative that did not meet your criterion.

variant, please justify your statements. The last few in this and the other thread have been vague statements that can only be taken as authoritarian or "trust me on this" (same thing). How does post 182 prove that what is false and in what way?

Do you want to take a few days' break and come back to this later?

 

[variant]

variant, please justify your statements. The last few in this and the other thread have been vague statements that can only be taken as authoritarian or "trust me on this" (same thing). How does post 182 prove that what is false and in what way?

Do you want to take a few days' break and come back to this later?

I'm just giving you a scenario that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

You can tell me what is metaphysically, physically or logically wrong with it if you so desire.

Your argument was that the supernatural is necessary to create a universe based upon your metaphysics understanding, and that this is common sense. So, I gave you an alternative which should be easy to dismiss using that same common sense.

 

[Received]

What does it mean to say you have timelessness but not necessarily supernaturalism? That the universe is timeless in some way before it becomes the universe? Or that there is some sort of protouniverse that's timeless and then something happens and you have the universe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ah, the hidden contempt for metaphysical possibilities shows itself again.

Where is the contempt in asking you how you know what you claim to know?

I'm not arguing that it does, but that it can, and more precisely that there's no reason to think that it can't, given that we can't even know how physical stuff interact with itself! All this is in response to your original implication that we can't accept the supernatural because we can't know how it interacts with matter; well, if we can't know how matter interacts with matter, the problem isn't at all present for matter or spiritual stuff interacting on it.

The problem is still present. You've just opted to sidestep it. One does not require a complete theory of causation to observe that causes are not wholly unlike their effects in that both are comprised of the same substance. You are proposing a cause that is wholly unlike its effects, but which is still able to exert an effect somehow. This gives rise to the question Eight Foot Manchild asked earlier: how is the supernatural able to causally integrate with the physical?

Which is a bigger problem: positing matter to be timeless and spaceless (which, actually, unless you're talking QM voodoo, isn't even possible with matter at all), or positing an intelligence that is timeless and spaceless? Let's start there. They are both umambiguously difficult, but whereas the former has the fatal problem of requiring an intelligence to go from spaceless/timeless to contained in time, the latter only requires that we admit that we don't know how intelligence in a timeless and spaceless sense could work. Are you saying we need to understand something before we can accept it? If so, do you reject QM?

No, the former need not require an intelligence at all. You're assuming your own doctrine satisfies the question. If you're happy to admit that you don't know how intelligence in a timeless and spaceless sense could work, then why aren't you happy by my admission that we don't know how matter in a timeless and spaceless sense could work? Admitting ignorance on the latter point is apparently unacceptable, but admitting ignorance on the former is?

Again, we can understand the process of nothing, something, therefore someone very easily, whether ex materia or ex nihilo. Same reasoning, same application, totally intuitive, just that "nothing" here has different implications (slightly), given that with the car you have a physical universe and with ex nihilo you have no physical universe.

It's not the same reasoning at all. We don't even know if the Platonic nothingness you are referring to is or was ever a real state of affairs. You're equivocating on two different meanings of "nothing."

 

[variant]

What does it mean to say you have timelessness but not necessarily supernaturalism?

That I can't tell you as I don't have an operative definition of "supernatural" that would allow me to make fine distinctions.

What I mean is that the timeless universe was a physical entity in a pre-"this" universe state.

That the universe is timeless in some way before it becomes the universe? Or that there is some sort of protouniverse that's timeless and then something happens and you have the universe?

I am saying that it is the same universe in a different state.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

variant, not frustrated, just calling it like I see it. There is a difference between logically prior and chronologically prior, and no, the former does not mean chronological -- just because it was logically prior does *not* mean chronologically prior, so you're not getting me here. And your appeal to a million questions tells me you're opening infinite skepticism toward metaphysical possibilities, an attitude of high skepticism lacking with your won beliefs. And yeah, we do know everything possible with the physical, because we know physics, and we assume causality; the alternative is quitting common sense (the principle of sufficient reason) and faithing it out by saying "we just can't know, there are a million possibilities."

Except when we need to make exceptions to our understanding of causality so as to accommodate theological doctrine, amirite?

 

[JimFit]

That I can't tell you as I don't have an operative definition of "supernatural" that would allow me to make fine distinctions.

What I mean is that the timeless universe was a physical entity in a pre-"this" universe state.



I am saying that it is the same universe in a different state.

BVG Theorem put an end to this argument, the Physical Universe can't be past eternal even if it was quantum fluctuations it demanded a beginning. Cyclic Universes was debunked also by Entropy and Thermodynamics.
Either the Universe had a transcendent cause or it popped out of Nothingness like magic, the Universe is Deterministic therefor it was pre-determined to be created, you can't have Randomness to Determinism, its a paradox, therefor Nothingness as a Creator not only is illogical because it doesn't provide a cause but it is random, nothingness is the absence of laws, constants, materialism, its pure Randomness, not only that but in the last 13.8 billion years we haven't observed something from Nothing. The right answer would be is the transcendent cause a Mind or something mindless?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

BVG Theorem put an end to this argument, the Physical Universe can't be past eternal even if it was quantum fluctuations it demanded a beginning. Cyclic Universes was debunked also by Entropy and Thermodynamics.

Are you referring to BVG or Craig's misinterpretation thereof?

Either the Universe had a transcendent cause or it popped out of Nothingness like magic,

Given that creatio ex nihilo is literally magic, why would that be problematic for you?

the Universe is Deterministic therefor it was pre-determined to be created,

Where did you get that idea from?

Nothingness as a Creator not only is illogical because it doesn't provide a cause but it is random, nothingness is the absence of laws, constants, materialism, its pure Randomness,

That's incoherent. In what way is nothingness random?

not only that but in the last 13.8 billion years we haven't observed something from Nothing.

So how does this count as evidence for creatio ex nihilo?