The universe with no need of God

[Alonso_Castillo]

And what do you think they mean when they use that word?

What it means,
Creation = It was not and then it was.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What it means,
Creation = It was not and then it was.

I thought the word implied an agent doing the creating, hence the back-and-forth between us.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I thought the word implied an agent doing the creating, hence the back-and-forth between us.

Created Things can't create themselves

The Universe Was Created, and couldn't Create Itself.

Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Created Things can't create themselves

OK.

The Universe Was Created, and couldn't Create Itself.

Assertion. It is not a consequence of Big Bang Theory that the Big Bang occurred ex nihilo. I explain this possibility in the OP:

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.

Again, the above is just one of four possibilities in a godless universe scenario.

Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes.

Nonsensical/contradictory. You are saying that in a state where there is nothing, there exists a rule such that nothing can come about. If there truly was nothingness, there would be no such rule. Hence, when there is nothing, anything is possible.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

OK.



Assertion. It is not a consequence of Big Bang Theory that the Big Bang occurred ex nihilo. I explain this possibility in the OP:

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.

Again, the above is just one of four possibilities in a godless universe scenario.

Membranes matterless, energyless, timeless, spaceles... That sounds quite like Spirit.

Nonsensical/contradictory. You are saying that in a state where there is nothing, there exists a rule such that nothing can come about. If there truly was nothingness, there would be no such rule. Hence, when there is nothing, anything is possible.

What can nothing make? Nothing.

Because if Nothing Makes something, then it wouldn't be nothing but something.

(Any possibility of something) Multiplied by Cero Equals Cero.

Out of nothing nothing comes.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Membranes matterless, energyless, timeless, spaceles... That sounds quite like Spirit.

So then you are saying that spiritual things manifest in reality?

What can nothing make? Nothing.

Because if Nothing Makes something, then it wouldn't be nothing but something.

(Any possibility of something) Multiplied by Cero Equals Cero.

Out of nothing nothing comes.

Confusing zero with nothing and then going on to restate your previous assertions while ignoring my responses that I already provided is satisfactory demonstration for me that you don't know what you're talking about and also that you have conceded the matter.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

So then you are saying that spiritual things manifest in reality?



Confusing zero with nothing and then going on to restate your previous assertions while ignoring my responses that I already provided is satisfactory demonstration for me that you don't know what you're talking about and also that you have conceded the matter.

Do membranes manifest in reality? ¿where are they?

now, on the Zero, well though zero in not nothing is the must close mathematical approach.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Do membranes manifest in reality? ¿where are they?

No they don't manifest in reality. If they did, then their existence would not be theoretical.

now, on the Zero, well though zero in not nothing is the must close mathematical approach.

Zero is the additive identity and as such is vital to a ring or a field, such as Z or Q respectively, and so to call it nothing is beyond absurd.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes.

Out of nothing, nothing is created.

One creates by transforming materials into a finished product, e.g., a factory may create a car from car-parts. "Nothing" isn't a raw material that can be transformed or assembled into something else.

Created Things can't create themselves

Agreed.

The Universe Was Created

That is not clear, and even if time is finite into the past, the Universe can still be Uncreated.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

No they don't manifest in reality. If they did, then their existence would not be theoretical.

Zero is the additive identity and as such is vital to a ring or a field, such as Z or Q respectively, and so to call it nothing is beyond absurd.

Right, According to Michio Kaku Father of the Theory of membrane, In his theory of the membranes there is room for God. He said it. Not me.

Now, Multiplying by Zero, leads always to Zero, Adding zero to zero, always result in zero, subtracting zero from zero always results in zero, dividing zero above anything is always zero. Zero is the closest thing to Nothingness and in mathematics zero means nothing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Right, According to Michio Kaku Father of the Theory of membrane, In his theory of the membranes there is room for God. He said it. Not me.

God is unfalsifiable so of course there will always be the possibility that he exists.

Now, Multiplying by Zero, leads always to Zero, Adding zero to zero, always result in zero, subtracting zero from zero always results in zero, dividing zero above anything is always zero. Zero is the closest thing to Nothingness and in mathematics zero means nothing.

You don't know what you're talking about. I already proved you wrong. Go look up what a ring or a field is.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

God is unfalsifiable so of course there will always be the possibility that he exists.
You don't know what you're talking about. I already proved you wrong. Go look up what a ring or a field is.

No, in fact Michio Kaku, Father of the Theory of Strings/Membranes, says that his Membranes can need intelligent vibrations, which he would see as Einstein's God of beauty and order.

Zero is mathematically Nothing. sorry but it is so. You can say that "0" stills being something and I agree, but for mathematical purposes Zero equals nothing,

 

[anonymous person]

Out of nothing, nothing is created.

One creates by transforming materials into a finished product, e.g., a factory may create a car from car-parts. "Nothing" isn't a raw material that can be transformed or assembled into something else.

We make things by transforming materials into a finished product, e.g., a factory may create a car from car-parts. "Nothing" isn't a raw material that can be transformed or assembled into something else.

Us taking pre-existing materials and modifying and arranging them is not analogous to the universe coming into being ex nihilo so comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

This is where the atheist's smoke screen of intellectual misgivings falls before the always verified and never falsified causal principle, so he backtracks and says something like "there were eternally existing, timeless, spaceless, immaterial membranes from which the universe sprang."

These membranes, (for which there exists no shred of evidence) are far more preferable a hypothesis than a conscious, moral agent who creates us and to whom we are accountable, and so the atheist reveals where his real misgivings stem from, i.e. a resistance against morally accountability to a Supreme Moral Law Giver. Any hypothesis is preferable to the one offered by theists.

In addition, the eternally existing membrane hypothesis is shown to be implausible by the rejoinder from Ghazali, namely, that if the sufficient conditions for the universe existing, existed eternally, then the universe would be eternal and would not have come into being approximately 16 billion years ago.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Us taking pre-existing materials and modifying and arranging them is not analogous to the universe coming into being ex nihilo so comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

I'm fully aware of that. But if nothing comes out of nothing, speaking of creation ex nihilo is meaningless babble. It is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

This is where the atheist's smoke screen of intellectual misgivings falls before the always verified and never falsified causal principle, so he backtracks and says something like "there were eternally existing, timeless, spaceless, immaterial membranes from which the universe sprang.

Yeah, like the smoke screen of an eternally existing, timeless, spaceless, immaterial God. Smoke screens like that.

These membranes, (for which there exists no shred of evidence) are far more preferable a hypothesis than a conscious, moral agent who creates us and to whom we are accountable

While I'm not a fan of string theory and membranes myself, it is far more preferable because the mathematics at least has something to do with observations of modern physics. God is just pulled out of mythology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

I'm fully aware of that. But if nothing comes out of nothing, speaking of creation ex nihilo is meaningless babble. It is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Ex nihilo is a phrase used by theists to describe a creative act by a personal agent. This personal agent is not nothing, but something, namely, a person.

Your presupposition which this argument destroys, is the naturalistic/materialistic presupposition that there exists nothing that is not made up of matter and that there is nothing that exists which does not endure through time and space.

You refuse to allow the evidence to inform your presuppositions and open up that closed box you have shut yourself up in which is fine. It just shows us that for you, the issue is a matter of the heart not of the mind and that you are begging the question.

While I'm not a fan of string theory and membranes myself, it is far more preferable because the mathematics at least has something to do with observations of modern physics. God is just pulled out of mythology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course it is far more preferable to you and for the reasons I mentioned. You want me to think you prefer such hypotheses because they are in accord with modern physics. Here you revert back to the smoke screen defense. You appeal to modern physics when it can be used as a shield to hide behind, but abandon it when it serves to refute your presuppositions. Not only that, but you appeal to theories which contrary to what you have said, have no basis in modern physics at all. Their basis is in the minds of scientists who like you, cannot allow the evidence to inform their presuppositions because too much is at stake, and so they craft these theories for which there is no evidence.

Meanwhile I sit back and smile at how my views are supported by the findings of modern scientists and other philosophical lines of argumentation, and which do not require me to hide behind anything and watch you struggle as the man who struggles to find his car keys he dropped in a parking lot struggles to find them in a small area of the lot illuminated by a street light because he reasons that they must be right there because that is all he can see.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I'm fully aware of that. But if nothing comes out of nothing, speaking of creation ex nihilo is meaningless babble. It is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah, like the smoke screen of an eternally existing, timeless, spaceless, immaterial God. Smoke screens like that.

While I'm not a fan of string theory and membranes myself, it is far more preferable because the mathematics at least has something to do with observations of modern physics. God is just pulled out of mythology.

eudaimonia,

Mark

The Core issue is that We Christians do not necessarily agree in a Ex Nihilo creation of the Universe. We Believe in a Transcendent CREATOR. which escapes Physics.

But Physics, right now, has fully achieve the point of This Universe coming into existence, I brought the Quote of Alexander Vilenkin about that.

We theist Postulate that the Universe was Created by an Act of ALMIGHTY WILL.

LET THERE BE LIGHT.

As anonymous person said accurately, if the set of conditions which gave existence to this universe had existed since ever then it wouldn't came into existence 14 billion years ago, but it would be existent since ever.

and I fully Agree with him, The core issue of Atheists is Moral Accountability to creator.

 

[devolved]

You just defended Materialistic deffinitions, but that doesn't change history nor philosophy.



Ok, So the Big bang happened by Pure Chance?



Hey you are right, somehow all nations in the earth are atheist and lost tribe in inaccessible geographies are not believers... ....Wait.



Right, That is why Scientific Atheism is not any longer necessary and can't make any negative assessment on God.



This was not always that way.



As I said, Now at the edges of knowledge whoch atheist tried to destroy for centuries, atheist are willing to believe whatever thing except God. But atheist who denied any origin of the Word tried to abolish whatever possibility of a Created Universe happening.

Things change.



Like Multiverses?



again definitions, ¿What would be an intelligently made thing?



Hey that makes sense, since we know everything there is to know, then we can deny that something we don't know means it doesn't exists... ...Wait.



the atheistic Uncreated Universe happened to be created.



Milk Cartoon Genius of your fridge ¿Needs milk, cartoon and Fridge to exist? ¿Yes? then he is not eternal. ¿No? so perhaps he is God and you don't know it.

Somehow The pure act of existence needs an explanation.



How can you deny the other events as not to be in fact acts of the genie?
how can you deny that the pure act of existence is not an Act of free will?



If they want to hear the answer and see a materialization, they would hardly have it. But somehow their perseverance in Prayer will take them to the conviction of being heard, and yes, God does answer through his word that is why we call it The Sacres Scripture. not because of infallibility of the semantics or because we believe that those are inventory acts of events, but because we know that the Spirit of the teaching is divine.

However no one of the scriptures can be interpreted alone, it needs to be studied and learned in community, in an assembly, in the Church.

I don't think it will be productive to address all of this point by point, so I'll attempt an overarching answer that will attempt to point to the problem that you have.

1) Overall, you are appealing to a non-materialistic interpretation of reality, which is problematic because it's not a reality we observe.

Thus, if we don't observe that reality, it's very easy to squeeze in just about anything into that "unobservable realm" without any need to justify it, and then scream "Materialist" every time one asks for some evidence for what you are postulating.

Again, you seem to misunderstand provisional methodological materialism. It doesn't postulate that nothing other than the observable matter exists. This methodology is based on observation and making least assumptions when it comes to explaining any given phenomenon. Hence, we begin with where we find ourselves in - in material reality. If there is a good evidence for non-material reality, then it would follow that such explanation is viable. If we don't find any evidence, then it can be a useful explanation, but it has not definitive ways as to how we can tell any difference.


For example, if I listen to someone saying "an angel saved my kid in a car crash, by protecting him from injuries", there's no way that we can verify or test such claim, especially when it's an ad-hoc type of interpretation of any given event.

2) From the above you say "Milk Cartoon Genius of your fridge ¿Needs milk, cartoon and Fridge to exist? ¿Yes? then he is not eternal. ¿No? so perhaps he is God and you don't know it."

And I can say... But it's only what we see in our reality as a milk carton in my fridge. But, the "invisible reality" of the milk carton Genie is that it doesn't really need any of that. It is eternal and is above our reality.

So, you see. I framed the rationalization in a way that you can't tell a difference. Everything good in your life is because of milk carton Genie. So, whenever you ask a question, I can plug in an unverifiable excuse as an "explanation".

Hence, if we can't tell a difference, is there really a difference?

3) You make up stuff like "scientific Atheism" and you ascribe it some inherent need to deny God and make up alternative explanations. Likewise, you say that belief in God is a worldwide phenomenon.

If we find a remote Amazon or Aboriginal tribe that without any missionaries would have the same exact story, you would have a point. Instead, what we have is some tribes believe in ancestral spirits (an no Gods)... some in spirits of animals, some more developed cultures have anthropomorphic gods. There are some that have no concept of God at all (look up piraha tribe in Amazon).

So, it all points to a local primitive attempts to explain reality by injecting "life-like" characteristics to otherwise natural events. Such is the history of religion.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, in fact Michio Kaku, Father of the Theory of Strings/Membranes, says that his Membranes can need intelligent vibrations, which he would see as Einstein's God of beauty and order.

So membranes, which may not even exist, may need intelligent vibrations? Is that the case you're building?

Zero is mathematically Nothing. sorry but it is so. You can say that "0" stills being something and I agree, but for mathematical purposes Zero equals nothing,

1. The additive identity, x, is the member of a ring such that x+y=y for all y.
2. The additive identity is a mathematical entity.
3. Mathematical entities are abstract things.
4. Abstract things are things.
5. The additive identity is a thing.
6. The additive identity is 0.
7. 0 is a thing.
8. A thing is not nothing.
9. 0 is not nothing.

 

[anonymous person]

1) Overall, you are appealing to a non-materialistic interpretation of reality, which is problematic because it's not a reality we observe.

You have been shown evidence that there exists an immaterial efficient cause of the universe. This conclusion is problematic for you because you are victim of the naturalistic/materialistic presupposition which holds that the only things that exist are the kinds of things you can observe, i.e. material entities that endure through time and space. If you were to follow the evidence where it leads, and be open to the notion that there just very well may be more to reality than what you can see, then the problem evaporates. If begging the question is not too high a price to pay, then you can retain your views. If you are in search of truth, then you will have to abandon your view for one that at minimum, does not require you to commit an informal logical fallacy.

Thus, if we don't observe that reality, it's very easy to squeeze in just about anything into that "unobservable realm" without any need to justify it, and then scream "Materialist" every time one asks for some evidence for what you are postulating.

If someone makes a claim without offering justification for it, then do whatever you please with the claim. Proponents of the Kalam offer justification for both premises of the argument and justification for thinking the cause of the universe is a personal agent. So such an objection is misdirected if aimed at such a proponent who offers good reasons and evidence for their claims.

Again, you seem to misunderstand provisional methodological materialism. It doesn't postulate that nothing other than the observable matter exists. This methodology is based on observation and making least assumptions when it comes to explaining any given phenomenon. Hence, we begin with where we find ourselves in - in material reality. If there is a good evidence for non-material reality, then it would follow that such explanation is viable. If we don't find any evidence, then it can be a useful explanation, but it has not definitive ways as to how we can tell any difference.

I agree with this. However, it seems when it comes to explanations with theological implications, many people are reluctant to consider them and will go one step further and prefer explanations that are actually logically impossible, like saying the universe created itself for example.

From this reluctance to simply follow the evidence where it leads, and instead prefer explanations either with no support whatsoever at best, and explanations logically impossible at worse, it is clear that such people are objecting not on intellectual grounds, but on existential grounds. Such objections are a matter of the heart, not the mind.

 

[devolved]

You have been shown evidence that there exists an immaterial efficient cause of the universe. This conclusion is problematic for you because you are victim of the naturalistic/materialistic presupposition which holds that the only things that exist are the kinds of things you can observe, i.e. material entities that endure through time and space.

No. I've said multiple times that I don't hold this presupposition.

My point is that we shouldn't jump to imaginary conclusions without proper justification. You claim that such proper justification was achieved, and I point out that it isn't.

If begging the question is not too high a price to pay, then you can retain your views. If you are in search of truth, then you will have to abandon your view for one that at minimum, does not require you to commit an informal logical fallacy.

I've explained provisional nature of methodological materialism. Your failure to understand the rational behind it doesn't constitute as an informal fallacy. You can't scream "Objection" and then when asked why you are objecting essentially reply "Because it's doesn't fit with my view, and you are not willing to accept it". That's not how arguments work.

We compare claims to reality. If the claims doesn't fit the reality we observe, we reject the claims.

If someone makes a claim without offering justification for it, then do whatever you please with the claim. Proponents of the Kalam offer justification for both premises of the argument and justification for thinking the cause of the universe is a personal agent. So such an objection is misdirected if aimed at such a proponent who offers good reasons and evidence for their claims.

Kalam argument should be packaged with a "jump to conclusions mat" that will help people with jumping to the conclusion from "Something must have caused" to "it must be a personal and immaterial mind"... because that doesn't flow from Kalam at all. When you twist Kalam into "personal cause", you essentially making an assumption that you are asked to justify.

It's like:

- Where do you get so much money from to spend so lavishly?
- I get it from the safe in my office
- Who puts it in there?
- My wife
- Where does she get the money?
- I give it to her
- Where do you get the money?
- I already told you. From the safe.

The above is all fine and dandy if no money is spent, but if the money is spent, then all of the circularity doesn't explain the cause. It feeds its own assumptions.

With the above

- How do you know God exist?
- There must be an initial uncased cause to the Universe, because Universe must have a beginning
- Why do you think that cause is God?
- Because Universe can't cause itself
- But, why do you think that God (personal agent) is the cause?
- Because only a God can cause something into existence

It's a circular injection of the presupposed premise to support the premise. How is it convincing or reasonable?

I agree with this. However, it seems when it comes to explanations with theological implications, many people are reluctant to consider them and will go one step further and prefer explanations that are actually logically impossible, like saying the universe created itself for example.

No you don't agree with it then . Why say that you agree with it, and then jump to "explanation with theological implications". It's like saying. Yes, I agree with methodological naturalism, BUT when it comes to real explanations of psychic powers... people are reluctant to go one step further.

OF COURSE! That's the entire point of methodological naturalism. If there was any consistency to the claims and explanations, then you'd have a point, and there would be justification to believe that sorts of stuff is real - Bigfoot, unicorns, dragons, chupacabras, and aliens flying in from the other planets. We would live in a mysterious and unpredictable world filled with all sorts of things that we should rightly believe if we abandon the central premise of methodological naturalism.


But when one describes God in a way that we can't tell between a God an something else, what do you expect to happen. God has to act in some consistently observable ways, right? If not, then how do you ever know it's God?

For example, can you give me a conclusive claim of whatever it is that God does in reality that could only be attributed to God and nothing else? I'm not talking about the past events, but something that God does now.