The universe with no need of God

[Nihilist Virus]

It's been nearly a week and no one has been able to formulate a rebuttal. I take it that all Christians who've read this admit that their worldview is not superior in terms of explanatory power.

 

[Tree of Life]

Therefore, God's properties are random. If God created the universe, he created its properties. God's random properties are responsible for the creation of the universe's properties. Therefore, the properties of the universe are random.

Could you say more about what you mean by "random"?

While I don't think that dictionaries are all that useful when we're speaking on a philosophical level (which you seem to be doing), here's a few dictionary selections:

Oxford English

1. Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision

A definition like this couldn't work because it's hard to see how it would apply to God. God was not made, nor is he something that is done, nor is he an event that happens, nor was he chosen by anyone to be God. God has eternally existed as himself. So this definition couldn't apply to him.

Mirriam Webster

1. without definite aim, direction, rule, or method <subjects chosen at random>

This definition appears more promising but it still couldn't apply to God. God certainly has aim, direction, rule, and method. He does not act randomly, in the sense that this definition gets at. But you're not talking about God acting randomly, you're talking about the God that we happen to have being random - as in, why do we have this God and not another? But since there was no process for determining the God that we have (since God is eternally existing), that process cannot be said to have been without definite aim, direction, rule, or method. So this definition also does not work when applied to God.

Online Etymological Dictionary

random (adj.)
"having no definite aim or purpose," 1650s, from at random (1560s), "at great speed" (thus, "carelessly, haphazardly"), alteration of Middle English nounrandon "impetuosity, speed" (c. 1300), from Old French randon "rush, disorder, force, impetuosity," from randir "to run fast," from Frankish *rant "a running" or some other Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *randa (cognates: Old High German rennen "to run," Old English rinnan "to flow, to run;" see run (v.)).

I always think it's useful to consult the etymology in these matters. The word itself seems to have derived from the idea of running fast and so acting haphazardly. This definition couldn't apply to God because there was no time in which there was not God. So there was no process for God becoming God to have been conducted hastily and in a haphazard way.

So all that to say, I'm confused as to what you think you mean by "random". What do you mean?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Could you say more about what you mean by "random"?

While I don't think that dictionaries are all that useful when we're speaking on a philosophical level (which you seem to be doing), here's a few dictionary selections:

Oxford English

1. Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision

A definition like this couldn't work because it's hard to see how it would apply to God. God was not made, nor is he something that is done, nor is he an event that happens, nor was he chosen by anyone to be God. God has eternally existed as himself. So this definition couldn't apply to him.

Mirriam Webster

1. without definite aim, direction, rule, or method <subjects chosen at random>

This definition appears more promising but it still couldn't apply to God. God certainly has aim, direction, rule, and method. He does not act randomly, in the sense that this definition gets at. But you're not talking about God acting randomly, you're talking about the God that we happen to have being random - as in, why do we have this God and not another? But since there was no process for determining the God that we have (since God is eternally existing), that process cannot be said to have been without definite aim, direction, rule, or method. So this definition also does not work when applied to God.

Online Etymological Dictionary

random (adj.)
"having no definite aim or purpose," 1650s, from at random (1560s), "at great speed" (thus, "carelessly, haphazardly"), alteration of Middle English nounrandon "impetuosity, speed" (c. 1300), from Old French randon "rush, disorder, force, impetuosity," from randir "to run fast," from Frankish *rant "a running" or some other Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *randa (cognates: Old High German rennen "to run," Old English rinnan "to flow, to run;" see run (v.)).

I always think it's useful to consult the etymology in these matters. The word itself seems to have derived from the idea of running fast and so acting haphazardly. This definition couldn't apply to God because there was no time in which there was not God. So there was no process for God becoming God to have been conducted hastily and in a haphazard way.

So all that to say, I'm confused as to what you think you mean by "random". What do you mean?

Any of the definitions you suggested suffice.


A definition like this couldn't work because it's hard to see how it would apply to God. God was not made, nor is he something that is done, nor is he an event that happens, nor was he chosen by anyone to be God. God has eternally existed as himself. So this definition couldn't apply to him.

God has properties. It does not matter if he is eternal or that he never came to be. He has properties, and these properties are not intelligently assigned. Therefore, his properties are necessarily random - whichever definition you want to use.

If you want to say that his properties are neither random nor intelligently assigned because he is timeless, you need to explain how exactly that makes sense.

 

[Tree of Life]

Any of the definitions you suggested suffice.


A definition like this couldn't work because it's hard to see how it would apply to God. God was not made, nor is he something that is done, nor is he an event that happens, nor was he chosen by anyone to be God. God has eternally existed as himself. So this definition couldn't apply to him.

God has properties. It does not matter if he is eternal or that he never came to be. He has properties, and these properties are not intelligently assigned. Therefore, his properties are necessarily random - whichever definition you want to use.

If you want to say that his properties are neither random nor intelligently assigned because he is timeless, you need to explain how exactly that makes sense.

God's "properties" are not assigned at all. All of those definitions of randomness include something like a process wherein assignment of properties could take place. God has always been who he is and so there was never a time when he gained his properties. So since his properties were never assigned, they could not have been randomly assigned. You need to come up with a better definition of random if you want to maintain your argument.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God's "properties" are not assigned at all. All of those definitions of randomness include something like a process wherein assignment of properties could take place. God has always been who he is and so there was never a time when he gained his properties. So since his properties were never assigned, they could not have been randomly assigned. You need to come up with a better definition of random if you want to maintain your argument.

I don't need a "better" definition of random. It seems more like you're objecting to my use of the word "assign."

You are saying that God has properties but that they were not assigned at all: intelligently, randomly, or otherwise. Instead of saying that there was no process overseeing the assignment of his properties, you're saying that there was no process at all. So how do you know that God exists the way he prefers to? How do you know he has control over his own preferences?

Does God control his own preferences?

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't need a "better" definition of random. It seems more like you're objecting to my use of the word "assign."

You are saying that God has properties but that they were not assigned at all: intelligently, randomly, or otherwise. Instead of saying that there was no process overseeing the assignment of his properties, you're saying that there was no process at all.

Indeed. And since every definition of "random" requires some sort of process then this word could not be applied to God.

So how do you know that God exists the way he prefers to? How do you know he has control over his own preferences?

Does God control his own preferences?

1. God has disclosed no signs of him having a personal identity crisis. He seems to be satisfied in himself.
2. What does it mean to have control over one's own preferences?

 

[Root of Jesse]

There is not a third camp. The "camps" were defined in this quote from ViaCrucis:

The way the OP is constructed seems to propose two camps, an atheist camp and a theist camp.

Atheism and theism is a dichotomy. No third camp.



Such as?



That is not a physical variable. Also, we can do well in a wide range of oxygen concentration. Ever been to the beach and also on a hilltop? Different concentrations of oxygen.



Such as...?



Even if this is true, you have made no attempt to show that God's properties are not random. That point is required for your case.

A. If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) – one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.
B. If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water – this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This anthropic coincidence also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.
C. If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these anthropic coincidences are beyond pure chance occurrence.
D. If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.
E. Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise resonance levels to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This anthropic coincidence was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
For all five anthropic coincidences, refer to New Proofs Chapter Two, Section II by Robert Spitzer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Indeed. And since every definition of "random" requires some sort of process then this word could not be applied to God.

For you to say that God exists for no reason and for no cause, and that his properties simply are and that no explanation is required or even applicable, yet deny that these things can apply to the universe or the bulk space from which the universe might've arisen, is the special pleading fallacy to the utmost degree. To be fair, you haven't actually made this claim. If you don't, then you admit that the universe can arise as it is for no reason and with no cause, which is to admit that your God is entirely unnecessary for anything. It seems that you believe in a God whose existence is indistinguishable from his nonexistence, and whose existence can only be argued for using fallacies, and to top it off, his existence is not even necessary for anything whatsoever. Do you believe that God gave you the ability to reason and yet expects you to forego its use?

1. God has disclosed no signs of him having a personal identity crisis. He seems to be satisfied in himself.
2. What does it mean to have control over one's own preferences?

God has given signs of a personal identity crisis. There is an identity crisis called split personality. God seems to believe he has three different minds. Also, he changed radically from obscenely wrathful to all-forgiving.

I do not know how you go about saying God is satisfied in himself if he demands worship from all of us. That seems to be expected from one who is not satisfied with oneself.

What does it mean to have control over one's own preferences? I prefer chocolate, but I have no control over that. If I did, I'd shut that preference off because I don't need the empty calories. God has preferences, such as the desire to be worshiped. Did he give himself this desire, or did he not? If not, does he have control over it? Can he dispose of this preference?

 

[civilwarbuff]

If you don't, then you admit that the universe can arise as it is for no reason and with no cause, which is to admit that your God is entirely unnecessary for anything.

I will certainly let others speak for themselves but I certainly don't admit to that. You may be willing to accept that something springs forth from nothing of its own accord but that most certainly violates the laws of conservation of energy and mass. In order to get a big bang you must have energy and mass; where did it come from according to the laws of the physical universe?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A. If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) – one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.
B. If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water – this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This anthropic coincidence also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.
C. If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these anthropic coincidences are beyond pure chance occurrence.
D. If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.
E. Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise resonance levels to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This anthropic coincidence was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
For all five anthropic coincidences, refer to New Proofs Chapter Two, Section II by Robert Spitzer.

Let's say I grant you all of this (which I don't). You seem to have ignored this part of what I said:

Even if this is true, you have made no attempt to show that God's properties are not random. That point is required for your case.

I did prompt you to give these details, and that was my mistake as it's driving us off topic. I'll be happy to address these issues of fine tuning you're presenting after you address the OP. Simply conceding the point to me is sufficient and we can move on from there to fine tuning.

 

[Tree of Life]

For you to say that God exists for no reason and for no cause, and that his properties simply are and that no explanation is required or even applicable, yet deny that these things can apply to the universe or the bulk space from which the universe might've arisen, is the special pleading fallacy to the utmost degree. To be fair, you haven't actually made this claim. If you don't, then you admit that the universe can arise as it is for no reason and with no cause, which is to admit that your God is entirely unnecessary for anything.

What I'm saying is that God's existence is the most basic, brute fact. He is the necessary being upon whom all other beings are contingent. So, then, God does not need a reason for his existence because he is the reason for the existence of everything else. He needs no cause because he is the ultimate cause of everything.

Now, does God's existence as the basic, brute fact make more logical sense than the universe itself being the basic, brute fact? From a logical perspective I don't think so. Something has to be the brute fact of existence. That the brute fact is God does not seem to me to be inherently more logical than the brute fact being something impersonal.

But herein is the big difference between Christian theism and atheism. We believe that a community of eternal, personal love is at the very core of reality (the Triune God). Therefore everything impersonal reduces to the personal. The atheist believes that at the very core of reality is impersonal matter and forces. Therefore everything personal reduces to the impersonal. I think this can make a big practical difference for how we interact with the world and experience life.

It seems that you believe in a God whose existence is indistinguishable from his nonexistence, and whose existence can only be argued for using fallacies, and to top it off, his existence is not even necessary for anything whatsoever. Do you believe that God gave you the ability to reason and yet expects you to forego its use?

I'm sorry that this is how it seems to you. But this strikes me as a misunderstanding of what it means to have faith. Faith in God is not a logical assent to a necessary truth. Faith in God is a personal relationship that affects everything about how I live and experience my life.

God has given signs of a personal identity crisis. There is an identity crisis called split personality. God seems to believe he has three different minds. Also, he changed radically from obscenely wrathful to all-forgiving.

I do not know how you go about saying God is satisfied in himself if he demands worship from all of us. That seems to be expected from one who is not satisfied with oneself.

Since this looks to me like a laundry list of theological scruples that would take us far afield from this thread I will not address these here.

What does it mean to have control over one's own preferences? I prefer chocolate, but I have no control over that. If I did, I'd shut that preference off because I don't need the empty calories. God has preferences, such as the desire to be worshiped. Did he give himself this desire, or did he not? If not, does he have control over it? Can he dispose of this preference?

You seem to be saying that for a person to have control over their preferences means that they have the ability to eliminate them or, in other words, to cease preferring the things that they prefer. Is this right?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Let's say I grant you all of this (which I don't). You seem to have ignored this part of what I said:

Even if this is true, you have made no attempt to show that God's properties are not random. That point is required for your case.

I did prompt you to give these details, and that was my mistake as it's driving us off topic. I'll be happy to address these issues of fine tuning you're presenting after you address the OP. Simply conceding the point to me is sufficient and we can move on from there to fine tuning.

It is very relevant to the question. The fact is that a creator had to have done these things to a very exacting standard. It is absolutely impossible that the universe could have formed randomly.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is very relevant to the question. The fact is that a creator had to have done these things to a very exacting standard. It is absolutely impossible that the universe could have formed randomly.

And how can a creator with random properties account for what you claim to be a perfect harmony of delicately balanced variables? He can't. I assume you disagree that his properties are random. Now please demonstrate this by responding to the OP. It is a necessary component of your argument.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What I'm saying is that God's existence is the most basic, brute fact. He is the necessary being upon whom all other beings are contingent. So, then, God does not need a reason for his existence because he is the reason for the existence of everything else. He needs no cause because he is the ultimate cause of everything.

Now, does God's existence as the basic, brute fact make more logical sense than the universe itself being the basic, brute fact? From a logical perspective I don't think so. Something has to be the brute fact of existence. That the brute fact is God does not seem to me to be inherently more logical than the brute fact being something impersonal.

But herein is the big difference between Christian theism and atheism. We believe that a community of eternal, personal love is at the very core of reality (the Triune God). Therefore everything impersonal reduces to the personal. The atheist believes that at the very core of reality is impersonal matter and forces. Therefore everything personal reduces to the impersonal. I think this can make a big practical difference for how we interact with the world and experience life.

Irrelevant. Appeal to consequences.

Also, your God committed and ordered numerous atrocities. He is promising to commit more. If you want to appeal to consequences, atheism is the way to go.

I'm sorry that this is how it seems to you. But this strikes me as a misunderstanding of what it means to have faith. Faith in God is not a logical assent to a necessary truth. Faith in God is a personal relationship that affects everything about how I live and experience my life.

To each his own. I prefer a personal relationship with reality.

Since this looks to me like a laundry list of theological scruples that would take us far afield from this thread I will not address these here.

Fair enough.

You seem to be saying that for a person to have control over their preferences means that they have the ability to eliminate them or, in other words, to cease preferring the things that they prefer. Is this right?

Correct.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And how can a creator with random properties account for what you claim to be a perfect harmony of delicately balanced variables? He can't. I assume you disagree that his properties are random. Now please demonstrate this by responding to the OP. It is a necessary component of your argument.

Who says the Creator has random properties? How can anyOne we claim to be God Almighty have 'random' properties?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Irrelevant. Appeal to consequences.

Also, your God committed and ordered numerous atrocities. He is promising to commit more. If you want to appeal to consequences, atheism is the way to go.

Who says they were atrocities? God allows free will. This means evil can enter the world, because with free will, you have the capacity to choose God, or choose other. If God says choose me and I'll give you everything, or choose other and I'll give you nothing, you have a free choice.

To each his own. I prefer a personal relationship with reality.




Fair enough.



Correct.

You can take a legalistic approach to God if you want. Or you can go be with the Mayans who practiced infanticide, or the Romans who had no social safety net. If you didn't succeed, you just died. I have proof of my God. I've shared it here, many places. You can go find it, if you want.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Who says they were atrocities? God allows free will. This means evil can enter the world, because with free will, you have the capacity to choose God, or choose other. If God says choose me and I'll give you everything, or choose other and I'll give you nothing, you have a free choice.

I did say he ordered atrocities as well. Such as, "Kill them all and take their virgins as wives." That's called a war crime.

You can take a legalistic approach to God if you want. Or you can go be with the Mayans who practiced infanticide, or the Romans who had no social safety net. If you didn't succeed, you just died. I have proof of my God. I've shared it here, many places. You can go find it, if you want.

Proof? You refuse to answer extremely basic questions or even, oh I don't know, read the OP before replying.

Who says the Creator has random properties? How can anyOne we claim to be God Almighty have 'random' properties?

You clearly did not read the OP. Why, then, are you commenting here?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I will certainly let others speak for themselves but I certainly don't admit to that. You may be willing to accept that something springs forth from nothing of its own accord but that most certainly violates the laws of conservation of energy and mass. In order to get a big bang you must have energy and mass; where did it come from according to the laws of the physical universe?

Still waiting for your answer........

 

[civilwarbuff]

I did say he ordered atrocities as well. Such as, "Kill them all and take their virgins as wives." That's called a war crime.

Please give book, chapter, verse in context......so that way we at least know the starting point......

 

[Root of Jesse]

I did say he ordered atrocities as well. Such as, "Kill them all and take their virgins as wives." That's called a war crime.

Well, sorry you don't like it.

Proof? You refuse to answer extremely basic questions or even, oh I don't know, read the OP before replying.




You clearly did not read the OP. Why, then, are you commenting here?

I did read the post, but you excluded people who believe in the Creation and the Big Bang, which typically does not agree with a 6000 year old universe. I said that in my first comment. Since you like to rule out people, even a majority, that don't think the two are opposed, I'm trying to find out where you would categorize me.