"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[Hieronymus]

Reality bites, doesn't it?

Why you ask me?
Do you not know reality yourself?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Get over it.

I'll take that as "I'm fine with being dishonest".

But I'm sure that if there's a God, that God is fine with your dishonesty.

Or not...

 

[Hieronymus]

I'll take that as "I'm fine with being dishonest".

It was just a silly slightly annoying joke.
Get over it.

 

[bhsmte]

Why you ask me?
Do you not know reality yourself?

You bet.

 

[bhsmte]

It was just a silly slightly annoying joke.
Get over it.

You have been exposed, get over it.

 

[Hieronymus]

You have been exposed, get over it.

Oooo nooo, i have been exposed !!

As what, may i ask?

 

[Hieronymus]

You bet.

No i don't bet.

 

[bhsmte]

Oooo nooo, i have been exposed !!

As what, may i ask?

Read the thread.

 

[Hieronymus]

I did, but you say i'm exposed, so i ask you "as what?"

 

[anonymous person]

I did, but you say i'm exposed, so i ask you "as what?"

Don't allow others to distract you. You are doing very well. Don't follow the scent of the red herring.

 

[Hieronymus]

Allright, good advise.

Sorry about he misquote thing, i didn't mean to insult or anything.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Allright, good advise.

Sorry about he misquote thing, i didn't mean to insult or anything.

Suuuuure you didn't...

 

[Hieronymus]

Indeed, i'm sure i didn't.

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly my point: Within our universe, we don´t observe mouses popping into existence from nothing.

That's the weird part of the argument to me. Here in reality, all we observe is natural processes changing the configuration of matter and energy in predictable ways. The conclusion that this implies that a magical creator god poofed a universe into existence seems to be a strange jump given that premise.

 

[KCfromNC]

There's a long history of giving up and running when you don't have actual answers, so your in good company.

And when did we stop talking about the greatest conceivable being?

Seemed about the time a few of us pointed out that a greatest conceivable being wouldn't be slowed down in the least by not existing. A lesser being might, but not the greatest conceivable one.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's the weird part of the argument to me. Here in reality, all we observe is natural processes changing the configuration of matter and energy in predictable ways.

You forget the intelligent conscious processes.

The conclusion that this implies that a magical creator god poofed a universe into existence seems to be a strange jump given that premise.

Because you miss the point.

 

[Hieronymus]

Seemed about the time a few of us pointed out that a greatest conceivable being wouldn't be slowed down in the least by not existing. A lesser being might, but not the greatest conceivable one.

How about the inconceivable one?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, God is the Creator, everything that is, is (initially) made by Him, He is the Original Cause.
That definition.

And how did you (or the one who originally said it) come up with this definition?

If you believe this or not is not relevant, but it's what "God" (capital G) means.

In abrahamic religion, yes.

My point here is that definition that are dreamed up are not really relevant.
You can define anything to be anything you want, if you don't care about supportive evidence.

How does one verify if this definition is accurate?

 

[DogmaHunter]

All of this can be excised with your answer to a simple question.

If the universe begins to exist, does this require a cause?

Yes or no?

Maybe.

Considering our current understanding of the nature of the unvierse though... I'ld have to say "no".

Because causality, as we understand it, is a phenomena of physics. Physics as it applies IN the universe. At T = 0 (the "beginning" of the space-time continuum), physics as we know it breaks down. So does causality by extension.

Since we don't know much (or anything at all) about what exactly happened at T = 0, I'm not willing to commit to saying that causality does not apply in any form.

But to say that causality does NOT apply certainly is "more correct" then to say that it does apply. Simply because that is what our current understanding of physics and the universe suggests.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Every start has a cause.

...in the universe.

This apparently is very complicated stuff for some people.
Ironically people who say their opinions are based on science and logic seem to have a very hard time with this question.

Science tells us that physics, including causality, breaks down at T = 0.