God the middleman

[doubtingmerle]

We value you personally far more than non-stamp collecting. Please don't confuse the two.

Collecting stamps? Boring. I come here and collect conversations with people that talk nonsense. Now that's an interesting hobby.

 

[gaara4158]

I know it is no longer considered a law, but it was by Aristotle. I know now it is just considered a rule of logic. But either way I can make my points seen below.

It’s not a part of logic at all. It’s from Aristotle, who contributed plenty to classical thought about logic, but it’s a formalized synthetic proposition, not an analytical one.

Not just apologists, but also scientists use those definitions everyday. And they make conclusions about reality using them.

It’s not a problem when scientists look for causal relationships within the observable universe. It’s a problem when apologists assume the universe must itself be an effect of something else based on the inferred existence of causality within it.

I am not claiming certainty. I am claiming inference to the best explanation. Scientists study the characteristics of effects everyday to determine their cause. By doing so, they can decide the most likely cause. And that is what I am doing with the universe, we study the characteristics of the universe such as having all the characteristics of an effect, therefore most likely it has a cause. Then you can look at more of its characteristics to determine characteristics of that cause.

Scientists do not conclude that the universe must have a cause, and those who entertain the possibility do not restrict such a cause to something resembling what apologists are arguing for.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What are my options that you promise not to equivocate or play silly manipulative "gotcha games" with?

The odds that I will do that are 100%.

I promise not to equivocate or play silly manipulative gotcha games.

I'm referring to the universe that started with the Big Bang, which includes all empirical matter.

Well, which way is it?

"All empirical matter" is basically the observable universe. It basically includes all that is within our Hubble Sphere, that is, all that is close enough to us that light from that object has had time to reach us.

"All that started with the Big Bang" could be much more, and could include stars outside our Hubble sphere. These stars, if they exist, are so far away, and space is stretching so fast, that their light could not possibly reach us.

In fact the universe started by the Big Bang could be infinite. We don't know. If it is infinite, there could be an infinite number of planet earths out there that have an identical thread on their Christian Forums on their Internet.

If so, in some of those earths, Paulomycin may respond to this post with a logical response. What are the odds of that?

Anything that came before that is trying to smuggle in an already falsified steady state theory.

Nope.

We know that our universe began from a small point, but we don't know how small. Possibly it went all the way back to a singularity (zero cubic inches at truly infinite density) in which case our space-time would not even exist "before" that. We would have no way of knowing what caused that, or even if it was caused.

Or our universe could have begun at quantum length (much smaller than an electron). In this case our current physics breaks down, but mathematics still works. I think our space-time still would exist. Before that, an event such as a Big Crunch of a previous universe could have happened.

Or our universe could have begun at say, the size of a basketball, in which case even our current physics has some means of understanding it, and could conceivable find some clues into what was before that.

None of this is the same as the steady state theory, which postulated an infinite static universe that always existed in essentially the same form.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Order
Necessitates
An Orderer

Does God have order? If so, then who was his orderer?

If God does not have order, then how could he create order?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What would a universe that definitely does not have a God in it look like?

Perhaps sometimes like this:

and sometimes like this:



What would a universe that definitely does have a God in it look like?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because, according to the rules of your little head game, I declared "word salad." Yeah. Or, you can take your unfounded accusation back and we can just move on. Or, you can do one better and admit you're hanging onto a completely ambiguous definition of "universe" yourself, and don't want to discuss it further.



I'm sorry Merle. According to your rules, your claim of word salad is only remedied by "what's your definition?" Not, "every possible definition in the dictionary."

Now answer my question.

Let me paraphrase what I am hearing: "Word salad? I know you post word salad, but what am I posting?"

Did you learn that tactic in a schoolyard?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Feel free to provide alternate causes for the universe that you would not consider to be bunkers. I have an answer do you?

OK, here is one: Maybe something equivalent to a quantum effect triggered a huge Big Bang out of nothing.

What the hey, I will give you two.

Perhaps there were an infinite number of particles in an infinite space. These particles or the forces that lead to them could have always existed. At times, something akin to a black hole pulls enough of these particles together that they explode out in a Big Bang. We happen to live in the result of one of those Big Bangs.

What do you think? Are these better than The Argument from Flying Balls?

 

[Pommer]

Complete chaos, or literally nothing. Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. Order necessarily requires an orderer.

Our universe has galaxies that are crashing into one another...how is that “order”?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Our universe has galaxies that are crashing into one another...how is that “order”?

My favorite part is that Christians cite our lack of understanding of dark matter and dark energy as evidence that the universe is so complicated and ordered that an intelligence was required to effectively balance a dinner plate on a pencil tip, but then when we fine tune Big Bang simulations to fudge the numbers (due to not understanding the dark stuff) they say, "Look, the universe is finely tuned!"

 

[Ed1wolf]

You're right. Christians are generally much more hostile to me than that.

I have never been hostile to you. You just confirmed much of my experience with atheists, hostility as well.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: I know it is no longer considered a law, but it was by Aristotle. I know now it is just considered a rule of logic. But either way I can make my points seen below.

g4: It’s not a part of logic at all. It’s from Aristotle, who contributed plenty to classical thought about logic, but it’s a formalized synthetic proposition, not an analytical one.

No, the statement "Every effect has an antecedent cause." is analytically true. Just like the statement "A bachelor is an unmarried man." Or "two plus two are four." Aristotle has classified six causes. The cause we are discussing here is the "efficient cause."

ed: Not just apologists, but also scientists use those definitions everyday. And they make conclusions about reality using them.

g4: It’s not a problem when scientists look for causal relationships within the observable universe. It’s a problem when apologists assume the universe must itself be an effect of something else based on the inferred existence of causality within it.

As I stated earlier, many years ago we were not sure logic worked in outer space, but we made the rational assumption that it did and it was later confirmed that it did with space travel. So also, we are not certain that logic works "outside" the universe, but it is rational to assume it does until proven someday.
↑

ed: I am not claiming certainty. I am claiming inference to the best explanation. Scientists study the characteristics of effects everyday to determine their cause. By doing so, they can decide the most likely cause. And that is what I am doing with the universe, we study the characteristics of the universe such as having all the characteristics of an effect, therefore most likely it has a cause. Then you can look at more of its characteristics to determine characteristics of that cause.

g4: Scientists do not conclude that the universe must have a cause, and those who entertain the possibility do not restrict such a cause to something resembling what apologists are arguing for.

Actually some have and do. Such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking (before he became an atheist), Arno Penzias, and several others I could name. But of course, most are not going to claim it is the Christian God because they would be ostracized and probably fired for being a fundamentalist.

 

[disciple Clint]

OK, here is one: Maybe something equivalent to a quantum effect triggered a huge Big Bang out of nothing.

What the hey, I will give you two.

Perhaps there were an infinite number of particles in an infinite space. These particles or the forces that lead to them could have always existed. At times, something akin to a black hole pulls enough of these particles together that they explode out in a Big Bang. We happen to live in the result of one of those Big Bangs.

What do you think? Are these better than The Argument from Flying Balls?

I would not say so unless in case one you can provide empirical evidence that something can be generated from nothing. In case two, you need to account for the source of the particles or the forces. Please proceed.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I have never been hostile to you.

Which is why I was saying other Christians are more hostile.

You just confirmed much of my experience with atheists, hostility as well.

I've not been hostile with you. Just a bit insulting because it's difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who is unable to understand what is being said. And when you misquote me, I don't like that very much.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, which way is it?

"All empirical matter" is basically the observable universe. It basically includes all that is within our Hubble Sphere, that is, all that is close enough to us that light from that object has had time to reach us.

"All that started with the Big Bang" could be much more, and could include stars outside our Hubble sphere. These stars, if they exist, are so far away, and space is stretching so fast, that their light could not possibly reach us.

In fact the universe started by the Big Bang could be infinite. We don't know. If it is infinite, there could be an infinite number of planet earths out there that have an identical thread on their Christian Forums on their Internet.

If so, in some of those earths, Paulomycin may respond to this post with a logical response. What are the odds of that?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I would not say so unless in case one you can provide empirical evidence that something can be generated from nothing.

It happens all the time. See Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light - Scientific American.

In case two, you need to account for the source of the particles or the forces. Please proceed.

And in case zero, you need to account for the source of God. Please proceed

Once again, one possibility is that some basic forces and particles always existed.

 

[gaara4158]

No, the statement "Every effect has an antecedent cause." is analytically true. Just like the statement "A bachelor is an unmarried man." Or "two plus two are four." Aristotle has classified six causes. The cause we are discussing here is the "efficient cause."

Yes. But the statement that causal relationships exist in reality is a synthetic proposition, and it is this proposition that acts as a premise in cosmological arguments.

As I stated earlier, many years ago we were not sure logic worked in outer space, but we made the rational assumption that it did and it was later confirmed that it did with space travel. So also, we are not certain that logic works "outside" the universe, but it is rational to assume it does until proven someday.

It’s not logic that’s being doubted here, it’s metaphysical claims about reality. In fact, it’s a logical fallacy — the fallacy of composition — to presume that because components of the universe work in a certain way, the entire universe itself must work in that way as well.

Actually some have and do. Such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking (before he became an atheist), Arno Penzias, and several others I could name. But of course, most are not going to claim it is the Christian God because they would be ostracized and probably fired for being a fundamentalist.

Publishing data that strongly indicated the existence of God would be incredibly lucrative. They’d instantly have the support and funding of massive religious institutions, and the scientific community at large would have a new rich vein of study to investigate. The fact that no scientist has come forward with such data isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just good skepticism.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Which is why I was saying other Christians are more hostile.



I've not been hostile with you. Just a bit insulting because it's difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who is unable to understand what is being said. And when you misquote me, I don't like that very much.

When did I misquote you?

 

[Paulomycin]

"Could be" is never an argument to what has been scientifically demonstrated. Scientific evidence isn't earned on credit.

 

[Paulomycin]

Collecting stamps? Boring. I come here and collect conversations with people that talk nonsense. Now that's an interesting hobby.

No. I stated, "non-stamp collecting." <-- It's actual jargon in the atheist community. Or at least it used to be. They thought it was clever and hilarious, so I don't imagine it could have died off that quickly. Please read the posts more carefully next time. This is probably what is contributing to the confusion here.

"All that started with the Big Bang" could be much more, and could include stars outside our Hubble sphere. These stars, if they exist, are so far away, and space is stretching so fast, that their light could not possibly reach us.

It would not include non-empirical matter.

In fact the universe started by the Big Bang could be infinite.

Which is a contradiction.

Or our universe could have begun at quantum length (much smaller than an electron). In this case our current physics breaks down, but mathematics still works. I think our space-time still would exist. Before that, an event such as a Big Crunch of a previous universe could have happened.

Which triggers infinite regress.

None of this is the same as the steady state theory, which postulated an infinite static universe that always existed in essentially the same form.

It's just re-worked steady state. The universe had a beginning, but you need to speculate your way around accounting for that beginning. We get it.

Does God have order? If so, then who was his orderer?

No, God is order. Order necessitates an orderer, but you're assuming that "orderer" assumes the necessity of order. Not in PSR.

Did you learn that tactic in a schoolyard?

It's your tactic. You just got called out on it. Anything you people don't like can be dismissed as "word salad," when in-fact it's more likely you just skimmed the post and merely half-read it (see above.).

 

[Paulomycin]

What would a universe that definitely does have a God in it look like?

Those are examples of Providence. God doen't owe you anything.