"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[DogmaHunter]

Logic and reason do.

You keep asserting this. When are you going to explain how exactly "logic and reason" says this?

Things can not cause themselves.

How does that validate the statement that the origins of the universe must be non-physical?

Not necessarily the simplest, but the most obvious.

I don't see how positing an unevidenced, highly complex, intelligence that doesn't come from a brain is "the most obvious".

 

[DogmaHunter]

...and because we can't it is impossible?

That's not at all what he said.

In any case, if you are going to claim that it is possible to create things from nothingness, then you have a burden of proof to live upto. Good luck with that...

Then how did everything get here?

Wow.
1. argument from ignorance
2. false dichotomy
3. shifting of burden of proof.

Gratz, you earn 3 combo points.

And what for?

Loaded question.

 

[durangodawood]

Logic and reason do.
Things can not cause themselves.....

If there can be an eternal and uncaused God, logically and reasonably,
why cant there be an eternal an uncaused realm of universes?

 

[KCfromNC]

You forget the intelligent conscious processes.

Nope, I mentioned them : "Here in reality, all we observe is natural processes changing the configuration of matter and energy in predictable ways."

Because you miss the point.

If you say so.

 

[KCfromNC]

How about the inconceivable one?

I don't know what it even means to pretend to believe in something you admit is unable to be understood, but go for it if it makes you feel better.

 

[Hieronymus]

You keep asserting this. When are you going to explain how exactly "logic and reason" says this?

I did, but you don't get it, apparently...
So now what?

 

[Hieronymus]

Unless they are gods?

No, you're disqualified now.

 

[Hieronymus]

I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that we have never observed anything being created. We don't know if it's possible.

Allright, that's true.
We should look what is most plausible then.
We can only say things are plausible or implausible based on the evidence.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Allright, that's true.
We should look what is most plausible then.
We can only say things are plausible or implausible based on the evidence.

Of course one side has the burden of proof and the other doesn't...

 

[Hieronymus]

He didn't say that it was impossible. He merely pointed out that "the rules" we are familiar with have not been tested in the unfamiliar terrain that is creatio ex nihilo. More to the point, we aren't sure whether there is any such terrain to navigate in the first place.

True, we can only assess what is (im)plausible or (un)likely.

 

[Hieronymus]

What you really mean is "magical thinking".

No,that's what logic and reason are to you.
Otherwise you wouldn't believe in dead stuff performing miracles.

 

[Hieronymus]

Philosophy is useless here.

Speak for yourself.
You have only proven it is useless to you.

 

[Hieronymus]

Logical reasoning does not lead to the conclusion that the physics of the universe apply outside the universe.

Obviously.
I don't know who would claim otherwise.

 

[Hieronymus]

As I understand it, nowadays physicists (and scientists generally) don't really talk of "causes" anyway. It's about finding explanatory models that best account for the data.

Then why do they start out with stating evolution is true, and then franticly try to prove it (or just convince others in any which way)?

 

[Hieronymus]

Of course one side has the burden of proof and the other doesn't...

He who claims it's science.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

He who claims it's science.

I'm not claiming anything. You're claiming it's a god. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm not claiming anything. You're claiming it's a god. The burden of proof is on you.

Nope, because it's a conviction of something very hard (if not impossible) to (dis)prove.
Science-ists who claim otherwise, which they often do boastfully, take the burden of proof.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nope, because it's a conviction of something very hard (if not impossible) to (dis)prove.
Science-ists who claim otherwise, which they often do boastfully, take the burden of proof.

Who on here is suggesting they're making a positive claim that they know how the universe came to be?

And aren't you making the positive claim that a god created a universe?

If so, you absolutely do have the burden of proof...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did, but you don't get it, apparently... So now what?

I must have missed it, where you explained yourself.
Care to point me to the post or quote yourself?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Obviously.
I don't know who would claim otherwise.

You, by taking the phenomena of causality and pretending that it applies outside of the space-time continuum.

Whatever it means to be "outside" of the space-time continuum, off course. Not that you (or anyone else) knows what that means. It sure doesn't stop you from making knowledge claims about it...