The universe with no need of God

[Davian]

No.....even when asked....

Do you have a post # for where you have asked a question that I have not addressed?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Go find it yourself....we are done.....

 

[Davian]

How dishonest...combining 2 of my posts to attempt to make them appear as one.

You did that in post #97, and I simply used the multi-quote toggle built into the site software to maintain the posts as they appeared. I do expect an apology.

I will ask 1 more time for you to post your evidence....

My evidence? Hardly.

Is google broken in your part of the internet?

 

[Moral Orel]

So what you are proposing is a modified form of the Steady State Theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
Steady State theory

Nope. Not that. I was intentionally vague because there isn't a solid answer. Maybe something like Hawking's singularity model, maybe something more akin to a multiverse. Either way, matter and energy don't need to pop into existence. Either it was all there, in one tiny ball, or the multiverse pumped it's energy into our universe through a single point.

Again, I'm being intentionally vague because no one has the absolute answer yet. Just pointing out that there are plenty of ways that energy and matter can be eternal and simply get moved around. And that's all the "Big Bang" is. All the matter and energy moving out from that one point. Maybe it was always there, maybe it came from a multiverse scenario, maybe it poofed into existence. Personally, inflation theory has me convinced, and it predicts a multiverse. So that is my opinion as to what is most likely, but we're far from gathering enough evidence and data to pin anything down.

 

[Davian]

Go find it yourself....we are done.....

Did you not start this exchange with references to papers that disputed inflation theory, and I asked you restate them here?

Where are you with that?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You did that in post #97, and I simply used the multi-quote toggle built into the site software to maintain the posts as they appeared. I do expect an apology.

My evidence? Hardly.

Is google broken in your part of the internet?

Post #97 has been redacted... hmmmm...

By the way, if you want to see a clear picture of the way he behaves when cornered, just read his responses to one of my other threads:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/is-god-above-the-law-or-not.7929367/

Unless, of course, they get redacted or edited.

 

[cloudyday2]

Hmmm. I was googling Christian pantheism and came upon this statement from CARM. This seems to be an example of what is described in the OP. CARM uses a double standard. Here is the quote from CARM:

A huge problem with pantheism is that it cannot account for the existence of the universe. The universe is not infinitely old. It had a beginning. This would mean that God also had a beginning, but how can something bring itself into existence? This is impossible, so this leaves us with the question of where God and the universe came from. Pantheism cannot answer this question, and it naturally leads to absurdities.

https://carm.org/questions/about-philosophy/what-pantheism

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think it's time to declare victory. The Christians have scored zero points and in fact they do not even know what game they are playing. Even the most genuine attempts to address my argument have come in the form of "Where did space, time, matter, and energy come from?" or "The universe is fine-tuned, therefore there exists an intelligent agent." These responses indicate that the ones putting them forth did not even understand the most basic condition laid out in the OP.

Some propose that infinitely many universes exist and that, in fact, every single possible state of our universe is actualized in some other universe. Let's call this Proposition X. I do not think Proposition X is impossible, but I don't believe it's actually true either. Regardless, Proposition X is sufficient, but not necessary, for us to find ourselves where we are now.

So these Christians are (mostly incorrectly) pointing out questions and then claiming that they can answer these questions if only we grant them the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, disembodied mind who exists for no reason and with no cause and whose very existence cannot even be questioned. And they see no problem whatsoever in terms of debate etiquette with this assumption. But then if an atheist says that they, too, can solve the problems of fine-tuning or creation of matter ex nihilo if only they are granted that Proposition X holds for no reason and with no cause, the Christian finds this assumption to be such an overwhelming intellectual liability that they simply cannot even progress in the conversation until the assumption is verified.

The Christian simply cannot and will not hold his own beliefs to the same level of scrutiny that he holds other claims to. And it's not even close. It's actually more like their starting position is that they assume their own position is true and impossible to be shown otherwise, and that their opponent's position is false and impossible to be shown otherwise. Such a person is completely unreasonable and it is impossible to have a fruitful discussion.

Those who are actually reasonable and are keeping score will see that the Christian and the atheist both simply don't know why we're here, why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is the way it is, and etc. And admission of that is what atheism actually is. Hence I claim victory.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think it's time to declare victory. The Christians have scored zero points and in fact they do not even know what game they are playing. Even the most genuine attempts to address my argument have come in the form of "Where did space, time, matter, and energy come from?" or "The universe is fine-tuned, therefore there exists an intelligent agent." These responses indicate that the ones putting them forth did not even understand the most basic condition laid out in the OP.

Some propose that infinitely many universes exist and that, in fact, every single possible state of our universe is actualized in some other universe. Let's call this Proposition X. I do not think Proposition X is impossible, but I don't believe it's actually true either. Regardless, Proposition X is sufficient, but not necessary, for us to find ourselves where we are now.

So these Christians are (mostly incorrectly) pointing out questions and then claiming that they can answer these questions if only we grant them the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, disembodied mind who exists for no reason and with no cause and whose very existence cannot even be questioned. And they see no problem whatsoever in terms of debate etiquette with this assumption. But then if an atheist says that they, too, can solve the problems of fine-tuning or creation of matter ex nihilo if only they are granted that Proposition X holds for no reason and with no cause, the Christian finds this assumption to be such an overwhelming intellectual liability that they simply cannot even progress in the conversation until the assumption is verified.

The Christian simply cannot and will not hold his own beliefs to the same level of scrutiny that he holds other claims to. And it's not even close. It's actually more like their starting position is that they assume their own position is true and impossible to be shown otherwise, and that their opponent's position is false and impossible to be shown otherwise. Such a person is completely unreasonable and it is impossible to have a fruitful discussion.

Those who are actually reasonable and are keeping score will see that the Christian and the atheist both simply don't know why we're here, why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is the way it is, and etc. And admission of that is what atheism actually is. Hence I claim victory.

I didn't know anyone was keeping score. But all you've done is propose theories, or propose already-proposed theories, and we have our 'theories' which are visible. So it's my theory is more believable than your theory.

I don't play games, folks. But I can see how you, our atheist bretheren, think it's all a game. Go ahead, then, claim you're victory, if you think that will make you bigger than you are...I don't really care.

 

[cloudyday2]

It looks like a tie to me
Atheists can't explain how it all started under atheism, but they have other reasons for believing atheism - atheism is closer to the methodological naturalism that has worked so well for scientists. Similarly, Christians can't explain how God got started, but they have other reasons for believing in Christianity - conversion experiences, answered prayers, etc.

 

[Davian]

It looks like a tie to me
Atheists can't explain how it all started under atheism,

Atheism is a theological position on the existence of deities, not astrophysics.

but they have other reasons for believing atheism

The position of "I am not convinced" is not a belief, and does not require reasons to hold it.

- atheism is closer to the methodological naturalism that has worked so well for scientists.

Methodological naturalism is not a theological position. You are comparing apples to orange crates.

Similarly, Christians can't explain how God got started,

Or deal with the infinite regress problem (just how long did this eternal "god" wait prior to creating the universe?).

but they have other reasons for believing in Christianity - conversion experiences, answered prayers, etc.

Nothing that cannot be said for just about any other religion.

 

[cloudyday2]

The position of "I am not convinced" is not a belief, and does not require reasons to hold it.

The beliefs are the propositions (e.g. "pigs fly", "turkeys fly", ...). A proposition exists in our brains as a possibility until we either falsify it or forget it. Ideally when we make decisions, we consider all propositions along with the confidence we have in each proposition, so we can calculate the decision with the highest expected return.

So "I am not convinced" actually means "I have such a low confidence in that proposition that it is unlikely to affect my decisions." There must be a reason for having this low confidence - just as there must be a reason for having a high confidence. There are always going to be reasons. If nothing else, the reason could be the source of the proposition. Did the proposition come from a book written by a famous thinker or did it come from some anonymous person like myself?

 

[Davian]

The beliefs are the propositions (e.g. "pigs fly", "turkeys fly", ...). A proposition exists in our brains as a possibility until we either falsify it or forget it. Ideally when we make decisions, we consider all propositions along with the confidence we have in each proposition, so we can calculate the decision with the highest expected return.

So "I am not convinced" actually means "I have such a low confidence in that proposition that it is unlikely to affect my decisions." There must be a reason for having this low confidence - just as there must be a reason for having a high confidence. There are always going to be reasons. If nothing else, the reason could be the source of the proposition. Did the proposition come from a book written by a famous thinker or did it come from some anonymous person like myself?

I do not see the source of the proposition to be an issue, if it can be presented in a coherent fashion.

The proposition may simply be incoherent, hence the theological position of ignosticism.

 

[Hawkins]

In a godless model of the universe, there are four potential explanations for the Big Bang, which I will refer to as the t=0 event so that those who believe in a 6000 year old universe will be more inclined to participate.

I. The t=0 event occurred for no reason and with no cause.
II. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) came into existence for no reason and with no cause.
III. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.
IV. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes resulted from previously existing things, which resulted from previously existing things, and etcetera ad infinitum.

I'll admit that none of these seem to be very satisfying, and what's more, there's no actual evidence to favor one over another. To compound problems further, we see that even if you grant any of them that the atheist chooses (say, choice I.), we are still left with this troublesome conclusion:

1. The universe has properties.
2. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
3. The properties of the universe were not intelligently assigned.
4. The properties of the universe are random.


All the theist must do now is remark that it is unreasonable to believe that the universe as it is came to be by chance, and therefore its properties must be intelligently assigned.

Have I dug my own grave?

To be fair, the theist has only won once he shows that the same logical scrutiny can be applied to his worldview and that it will be shown to be more reasonable and/or more likely to be true.

Observe:

1. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
2. God has properties.
3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.
4a. Assume God did not assign his own properties to himself.
5a. No one assigned God his properties, so they are not intelligently assigned.
6a. God's properties are random.
4b. Assume God did assign his own properties to himself.
5b. We can reasonably agree that God assigned himself his own properties according to his own preferences.
6bA. Assume God assigned himself his own preferences.
7bA. Before God assigned himself his own preferences, he did not have any preferences.
8bA. God assigned himself his own preferences randomly.
9bA. God assigned himself his own properties according to random preferences.
10bA. God's properties are random.
6bB. Assume God did not assign himself his own preferences.
7bB. God's preferences are not intelligently assigned.
8bB. God's preferences are random.
9bB. Go to 9bA.

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.

The assertion of God as the answer does not solve the problem of the universe's properties being random. Furthermore, it is the assertion of something as fact which is both unfalsifiable and unnecessary. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that God more likely exists than doesn't, and it is irrational to suggest that theism is more reasonable than atheism.

If you want to say that we cannot logically dissect God, or that we cannot even discuss matters of the divine, then you refuse to subject your own worldview to the same level of logical scrutiny to which you subject the atheist worldview. This is taken as a withdraw from debate, or in other words, an admission of defeat.



*(There can be a mixture of intelligent assigning and random assigning. For example, with sleight of hand I might give myself a better chance of drawing the ace of spades from 1 chance in 52 to, say, one chance in 10. In this case, it can be said that the card I draw is random to some degree and intelligently assigned to some degree. For the purposes of this thread, I will ignore this possibility because either there is no God, in which case there is no intelligent agent to stack the odds of a certain thing to occur, or else there is a God, in which case said God does not need to rely on chance as he is omnipotent. I assume we can agree to ignore the possibility of a God that has limited power; God is either unlimited in power or else maximally powerful, that is, he can perform any action which is not logically absurd.)


Footnote: I will refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument here so it cannot be said that I'm ignoring it.

The argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

Earlier, I entertained the possibility of membranes causing the universe to exist. This does not solve the problem of causality but rather pushes it back one step; the membranes cause the t=0 event in a temporal, physical sense, making the t=0 event the result of causality, but it follows here that the membranes (or the thing from which the membranes ultimately arose) must have come about without cause.

Now, it may well be true that God used some other means besides causality to create the universe, or he might have simply violated logic and caused the t=0 event to occur. In either case, we cannot reach these conclusions logically starting from premises that make sense. Hence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.

The universe doesn't need the existence of humans either, humans for a fact exist though.

What's the point?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The universe doesn't need the existence of humans either, humans for a fact exist though.

What's the point?

No one has ever claimed that humans caused the universe to exist.

The vast majority of Christians and theists in general claim that God caused the universe to exist.

Your "confusion" appears to be deliberate and I can only assume you have no way of refuting my argument.

 

[Hawkins]

No one has ever claimed that humans caused the universe to exist.

The vast majority of Christians and theists in general claim that God caused the universe to exist.

Your "confusion" appears to be deliberate and I can only assume you have no way of refuting my argument.

The point is, necessity has nothing to do with what actually happened.

You don't have an valid argument here.

"You don't need to ride on a bus" has nothing to do with "whether you actually ride on a bus."

Similarly, if your opinion is that it's not a necessity for God to create anything, it has nothing to do with whether God has actually created anything.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The point is, necessity has nothing to do with what actually happened.

You don't have an valid argument here.

"You don't need to ride on a bus" has nothing to do with "whether you actually ride on a bus."

Similarly, if your opinion is that it's not a necessity for God to create anything, it has nothing to do with whether God has actually created anything.

You didn't read the whole thing. In fact it sounds like you read only the title. First I showed that God is no better an explanation for the t=0 event than anything else, and then I showed he could not have caused it in my refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It looks like a tie to me
Atheists can't explain how it all started under atheism, but they have other reasons for believing atheism - atheism is closer to the methodological naturalism that has worked so well for scientists. Similarly, Christians can't explain how God got started, but they have other reasons for believing in Christianity - conversion experiences, answered prayers, etc.

I have to disagree, atheism is not closer to the methodological naturalism. I believe that without the a priori view of Christianity that the universe is comprehensible and ordered is necessary for the scientific method to work.

 

[cloudyday2]

I have to disagree, atheism is not closer to the methodological naturalism. I believe that without the a priori view of Christianity that the universe is comprehensible and ordered is necessary for the scientific method to work.

I can't understand what you're saying. I wonder if there is a typo? Or maybe I am just not getting it for some reason.

 

[Davian]

I have to disagree, atheism is not closer to the methodological naturalism. I believe that without the a priori view of Christianity that the universe is comprehensible and ordered is necessary for the scientific method to work.

I can't understand what you're saying. I wonder if there is a typo? Or maybe I am just not getting it for some reason.

Allow me to attempt a translation.

"I believe that without the presupposition that the universe was spoken into existence, along with two people and some animals, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, the planet was flooded and repopulated using a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived in an unbuildable boat, and later the god that spoke everything into existence and flooded the Earth sacrifices Himself to Himself to change a rule He made Himself, in order to convince Himself to forgive a small portion of humanity for the crimes of those two original people who some Christians don't even believe existed as real people, you cannot see the universe as comprehensible and ordered as is necessary for the scientific method to work."

Does that not make sense, or what?