Why I believe in God

[Ken-1122]

Here's the evidence I find most convincing that God exists.

Our universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is accepted by nearly all scientists.
If the universe had a beginning, either there is an eternal multiverse or succession of universes, or God created it. To say it just happened without a cause I see as highly irrational,

The Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe as we know it. What existed before the Big Bang, science doesn't know, but they do not claim there was a time when nothing existed.

Ken

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Spacetime and causality both assume each other. Time is a sequences of events tied together causally.

But we're not talking about causality apart from spacetime. The origin of the universe is a fact about the universe, and should be related to the laws we discover that the universe operates by. It seems atheism is getting to the point where it's willing to abandon science to avoid God.

If you go by that line of reasoning, then what should we make of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?

 

[quatona]

If so, science cannot deal with the origin of the universe at all. Is that really what you are going for?

Given your premise that the conditions under which the universe originated were substantially different than the conditions we observe within the universe: Yes.

Perhaps intuition was the wrong word. What do you call your sense that there can be no possible universe in which 1+1=3? That doesn't have to be based on experience, just reason.

Well, that example is quite different from claim you were making. You were postulating the validity of instinctual assumptions in a scenario which you had just stripped off all foundations which our respective intuitions (or reasonings) are based on: Our concept (be it instinctual or rational) of causality is rooted in our experience of time and space.
The appropriate example would be rather: In the absence of distinct objects, would 1+1=2 be a possible, workable, meaningful statement?

Spacetime and causality both assume each other. Time is a sequences of events tied together causally.

My word.

But we're not talking about causality apart from spacetime.

Well, you did. You talked about the absence of spacetime and postulated that causality is still a valid concept in this scenario.

The origin of the universe is a fact about the universe, and should be related to the laws we discover that the universe operates by.

In the same way an aquarium should swim in water?

Of course, at the point where you postulate that the unvierse came about in the absence of spacetime, you have abandoned your very axiom, in that your premise is exactly this: the origin of the universe isn´t related to the laws we observe to be ruling within the universe.
You can´t eat the cookie and have it, too.

It seems atheism is getting to the point where it's willing to abandon science to avoid God.

I understand your inclination towards taking little jabs at atheism, but this has nothing to with atheism vs. theism. It affects any "explanation" for the origin of the universe - no matter whether it involves Gods or not:
We cannot postulate that a system itself isn´t subject to the conditions that are observed within the system (e.g.) spacetime, and at the same time demand that our "explanations" have to conform to the conditions observed within the system.
That´s simple logic and a question of consistency and coherence of our approach.

 

[Received]

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." —Winston Churchill

True story.

I'd just say that what makes them blind to the truth they stumble over is the idealization of their perspective (emotionally held, faithfully held) as the right one, as opposed to openness to the truth, which takes some emotional intelligence in pushing through the stings that can come with admitting you're wrong again and again.

Of course, I think with the person who practices the virtue of openness would become desensitized to these stings, making it easier as he continues to practice this attitude to remain in this attitude.

 

[Davian]

True story.

I'd just say that what makes them blind to the truth they stumble over is the idealization of their perspective (emotionally held, faithfully held) as the right one, as opposed to openness to the truth, which takes some emotional intelligence in pushing through the stings that can come with admitting you're wrong again and again.

Of course, I think with the person who practices the virtue of openness would become desensitized to these stings, making it easier as he continues to practice this attitude to remain in this attitude.

Are you describing yourself in that?

My experience has been quite different. It is not a sting, but an epiphany, that comes when you feel that you have grokked an accurate description of an aspect of reality, one that can be kicked around the block and still retain its shape. If it can be demonstrated to be wrong, I welcome it. I have nothing to lose.

 

[Received]

Are you describing yourself in that?

My experience has been quite different. It is not a sting, but an epiphany, that comes when you feel that you have grokked an accurate description of an aspect of reality, one that can be kicked around the block and still retain its shape. If it can be demonstrated to be wrong, I welcome it. I have nothing to lose.

Then you'd be the one desensitized to stings.

 

[Davian]

Then you'd be the one desensitized to stings.

What 'stings' might you be referring to? Got anything?

Also, does post #64 describe yourself?

 

[Percivale]

Given your premise that the conditions under which the universe originated were substantially different than the conditions we observe within the universe: Yes.

So either the universe is eternal or science is limited in what it can tell us about origins.

Well, that example is quite different from claim you were making. You were postulating the validity of instinctual assumptions in a scenario which you had just stripped off all foundations which our respective intuitions (or reasonings) are based on: Our concept (be it instinctual or rational) of causality is rooted in our experience of time and space.
The appropriate example would be rather: In the absence of distinct objects, would 1+1=2 be a possible, workable, meaningful statement?

I think causality and math are in the same boat. If nothing exists, there's nothing to count and nothing to cause, so neither idea is relevant or meaningful. But for spacetime to exist, both have to be there.

Well, you did. You talked about the absence of spacetime and postulated that causality is still a valid concept in this scenario.

Not quite. I said causality is a valid concept regarding the origin of spacetime. Causality exists simultaneously to the effect temporally, but prior in order of causation. That's true even in something like one ball hitting another.

Of course, at the point where you postulate that the unvierse came about in the absence of spacetime, you have abandoned your very axiom, in that your premise is exactly this: the origin of the universe isn´t related to the laws we observe to be ruling within the universe.
You can´t eat the cookie and have it, too.

When did I say the origin of the universe is not related to the laws governing it? That's the very point I've been debating against. Spacetime is synonymous with the universe, as I've been using the words. To say one came about in the absence of the other is tautologous. Either they came about or they are eternal.

I understand your inclination towards taking little jabs at atheism, but this has nothing to with atheism vs. theism. It affects any "explanation" for the origin of the universe - no matter whether it involves Gods or not:
We cannot postulate that a system itself isn´t subject to the conditions that are observed within the system (e.g.) spacetime, and at the same time demand that our "explanations" have to conform to the conditions observed within the system.
That´s simple logic and a question of consistency and coherence of our approach

Perhaps I misunderstood where you are coming from. I thought you were proposing the idea that the universe had a beginning but not a cause. That belief I consider an abandonment (partial) of science. If you believe the universe, (or multiverse, etc) is eternal, then I grant that is a logical possibility, and we just have those mathematical problems with an infinite succession to resolve, which I think may be possible. If the debate over whether the universe had a cause is resolved, we can go on to whether God, a preceding universe, or a multiverse is the best explanation; or if they are equal, we can move on to other things like the origin of life.

Was it science that convinced you that gods were real?

I've always believed in God, but when I started to doubt science helped confirm it.

If you go by that line of reasoning, then what should we make of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?

That spacetime and causality were first instantiated simultaneously. As ideas they eternally existed in God's mind. How mind can cause matter is a mystery, but something like it happens every day. A clear example is when someone gets an appliance with assembly required, and must read the owners manual to assemble it successfully. Information, processed by a mind, causes particular nerve impulses, muscle movements, and physical assembly to happen. One thing is for sure: God is a better explanation than the 'cosmic egg theory' mentioned earlier.

 

[Davian]

Should be? On what do you base that?

Was it science that convinced you that gods were real?

I've always believed in God, but when I started to doubt science helped confirm it.

Can you point out what, scientifically, confirmed the existence of your god?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This explanation says that time has a beginning but not a cause. Something beginning is an event, and that every event has a cause is the most proven scientific fact we know, as well as being intuitively obvious.

Vacuum state.

Quantum fluctuation

Quantum mechanics is really weird. One of the ideas it has developed is the idea that a vacuum randomly has bursts of energy and particles seemingly ex nihilo.

Quantum mechanics is also not directly causal either. While causality is "intuitively obvious" when we discuss non-quantum scales, at the quantum scale, it is not so clear.

If God is eternal, he is unchanging, but can have eternally chosen to create earth. Matter, on the other hand, does not have the ability to start a chain of causation, only to continue it.

See my link about quantum fluctuations.



Unfortunately, your whole OP is largely just an argument from ignorance or "God of the Gaps" argument.

What happens if science discovers evidence of an infinite multiverse? What happens if science explains the issues you present? What happens if science discovers something which you didn't account for?

Don't set up your god against the gaps because the gaps may be filled and where does that leave your god?

 

[quatona]

So either the universe is eternal or science is limited in what it can tell us about origins.

Given your premises, yes.

I think causality and math are in the same boat. If nothing exists, there's nothing to count and nothing to cause, so neither idea is relevant or meaningful. But for spacetime to exist, both have to be there.

But when we talk about a state in which spacetime came into existence there is no reason to assume they were there.

Not quite. I said causality is a valid concept regarding the origin of spacetime.

Yes, that´s what you said.

Causality exists simultaneously to the effect temporally, but prior in order of causation.

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to communicate. Can you reword it for me, please?

When did I say the origin of the universe is not related to the laws governing it?

When you said that spacetime (a condition within the universe) did not exist prior to the universe.

That's the very point I've been debating against. Spacetime is synonymous with the universe, as I've been using the words. To say one came about in the absence of the other is tautologous. Either they came about or they are eternal.

Which means that causality could have come about along with them, and did not necessarily exist when the universe didn´t exist.

Perhaps I misunderstood where you are coming from. I thought you were proposing the idea that the universe had a beginning but not a cause.

That would be one of several options - each of which are equally exceptional (in that they assume the "explanation" they give is not based on what we observe within the universe). You can´t hold this fact against one or several of them but ignore it when it comes to the one you favour.

That spacetime and causality were first instantiated simultaneously. As ideas they eternally existed in God's mind. How mind can cause matter is a mystery,

At the point where something about a so called "explanation" involves a mystery, all other non-explanatory competing claims are on equal footing with this "explanation".

but something like it happens every day.

No. We don´t observe mind to create matter. We simply don´t.

A clear example is when someone gets an appliance with assembly required, and must read the owners manual to assemble it successfully. Information, processed by a mind, causes particular nerve impulses, muscle movements, and physical assembly to happen.

This is an example for change, transformation. It is not an example for matter being created where there was none before.

One thing is for sure: God is a better explanation than the 'cosmic egg theory' mentioned earlier.

As long as you don´t solve the "It´s a mystery" part, every other non-explanation is as good or bad as "Goddidit".
The universe created itself from nothing. - How is that possible? - It´s a mystery.
The universe just popped into existence without a cause. - How is that possible? - It´s a mystery.
God created the universe ex nihilo. - How´s that possible? - It´s a mystery.

 

[Percivale]

Quantum mechanics is really weird. One of the ideas it has developed is the idea that a vacuum randomly has bursts of energy and particles seemingly ex nihilo.

Quantum mechanics is also not directly causal either. While causality is "intuitively obvious" when we discuss non-quantum scales, at the quantum scale, it is not so clear.

Since no one fully understands quantum mechanics, people smuggle in any belief they want by appealing to it. But causality is still relevant in quantum mechanics; if it wasn't, it would not be a science. It is a science because it has predictive power; it demonstrates that particles behave in certain ways and not in others. I don't hold to the idea that for causality to be true, each cause can have only one possible effect. Causality is still in place if something causes a random choice between several outcomes that each have specific probabilities. A truly uncaused event would be totally unpredictable, and you could not assign it any probability ratings or build any theory on it.

I am against 'God of the gaps' arguments too, when there refer to things we just don't know enough about. But there's a big difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. In the case of the universe, I grant there could be a multiverse, and perhaps it could be eternal. But we don't have any better reason to believe in those than in God, since they do not currently have any scientific evidence. If new evidence comes in, we should adjust our beliefs to fit it, but till then, 'the rational person conforms his beliefs to the evidence' available. Also, let's not have 'atheism of the gaps' either. The alternative views of the origin of the universe are just as untestable as God at present, and have the same degree of possibility of being disproved in the future.

@quatona: you don't want to give your opinion, do you? It's easier to criticize than to build a case.
About mystery, you are saying if you don't know everything, you don't know anything.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That spacetime and causality were first instantiated simultaneously. As ideas they eternally existed in God's mind. How mind can cause matter is a mystery, but something like it happens every day. A clear example is when someone gets an appliance with assembly required, and must read the owners manual to assemble it successfully. Information, processed by a mind, causes particular nerve impulses, muscle movements, and physical assembly to happen.

This is a poor analogy to creatio ex nihilo because the assembly of the appliance does not occur ex nihilo. The mind assembling the appliance did not conjure the appliance into existence from nothing, which is what many theists claim God did in creating the universe.

One thing is for sure: God is a better explanation than the 'cosmic egg theory' mentioned earlier.

Why? What about the following idea instead: the universe sprang forth from the glorious flickering of an eternal holy Flame?

 

[Percivale]

This is a poor analogy to creatio ex nihilo because the assembly of the appliance does not occur ex nihilo. The mind assembling the appliance did not conjure the appliance into existence from nothing, which is what many theists claim God did in creating the universe.

This analogy is about mind affecting matter. As to how matter can come into existence in the first place, perhaps theists and atheists would answer similarly, appealing to quantum physics and how an energized vacuum can give rise to particles.

Why? What about the following idea instead: the universe sprang forth from the glorious flickering of an eternal holy Flame?

That idea sound to me like just a rewording of the theistic explanation, from perhaps a Zoroastrian perspective, so it's in agreement with my position. Theists are not just Christians, they can be Muslim, Confucian, Sikh, Deist, etc. This thread has no specifically Christian arguments.


Since a multiverse or cosmic egg are as different from our universe as God is from humans, God is not less probable than those options as an explanation of the universe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This analogy is about mind affecting matter. As to how matter can come into existence in the first place, perhaps theists and atheists would answer similarly, appealing to quantum physics and how an energized vacuum can give rise to particles.

That idea sound to me like just a rewording of the theistic explanation, from perhaps a Zoroastrian perspective, so it's in agreement with my position. Theists are not just Christians, they can be Muslim, Confucian, Sikh, Deist, etc. This thread has no specifically Christian arguments.


Since a multiverse or cosmic egg are as different from our universe as God is from humans, God is not less probable than those options as an explanation of the universe.

Perhaps not, but the specific god you worship being the cause will always be less likely than no god being the cause, because you have to exclude the other possible deities

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This analogy is about mind affecting matter. As to how matter can come into existence in the first place, perhaps theists and atheists would answer similarly, appealing to quantum physics and how an energized vacuum can give rise to particles.

If the analogy is simply about how mind can affect matter, then I can hardly see its relevance to the discussion.

That idea sound to me like just a rewording of the theistic explanation, from perhaps a Zoroastrian perspective, so it's in agreement with my position. Theists are not just Christians, they can be Muslim, Confucian, Sikh, Deist, etc. This thread has no specifically Christian arguments.


Since a multiverse or cosmic egg are as different from our universe as God is from humans, God is not less probable than those options as an explanation of the universe.

It's not in agreement with your position. Your position is, I presume, that an intelligent supernatural agent created the universe ex nihilo. This is different to the holy Flame I proposed earlier.

 

[Percivale]

Ok, a holy flame could be understood as a material substance, and then we're back to the Cosmic Egg theory. I don't see what would be so holy about it in that case. Ok, maybe it would be the object of some atheist's veneration.
Every belief about origins boils down to two options: Either the universe came from simply matter, or from a conscious being. Either ultimate or original reality is conscious or not. Therefore the question of which God is not relevant to the question of whether God exists (defined as the conscious creator of the universe).
In a significant sense, all religious people believe in the same God, just differ on various details as to what he/she/it is like. All the religions I mentioned above agree on a majority of God's attributes, such as wisdom, power, goodness, eternity. Even the flying spaghetti monster is not a rival God, but rather the dubious proposition that the true God happens to have spaghettiness as a significant attribute.
If one is once convinced that God exists, the question remains if any religion is true, and if so which, and if not whether religions have value. But that's the topic for another thread.

 

[Davian]

Ok, a holy flame could be understood as a material substance, and then we're back to the Cosmic Egg theory. I don't see what would be so holy about it in that case. Ok, maybe it would be the object of some atheist's veneration.
Every belief about origins boils down to two options: Either the universe came from simply matter, or from a conscious being. Either <snip>

You get ahead of yourself too quickly there.

I was listening to a talk with physicist Sean Carroll, and he explained how the reality is that physicists do not talk about "cause and effect", they talk of "models and equations".

But, if you want to go down this road you are on, I would ask: How do *you* know what the requirements are for the creation of a universe? Need it be intelligent, if we do not know how many - if any - options are available to this hypothetical creator? How powerful need it be, noting that the universe is observed to have a sum total energy of zero? Why does it need to be a "god" (however you have defined it)?

It all seems that you are simply working backwards from conclusion that you need to hold on to. It is not actually why you believe in a god.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Since a multiverse or cosmic egg are as different from our universe as God is from humans

That is simply not true.

The cosmic egg is the universe a long time ago. It didn't have galaxies, because those are contingent entities that had developed over time, but it was not fundamentally different. The multiverse as well is not fundamentally different. Neither is a supernatural or spiritual entity.

God, as typically described by theologians, is fundamentally different than natural reality (e.g., God is not made out of atoms), and God is said to have supernatural powers. God is also often said to be a "spirit", and "outside of time". None is this is true for the cosmic egg or multiverse.

God is not less probable than those options as an explanation of the universe.

I don't think of this issue in terms of probability, but I'd say that God is far less credible because it requires inventing a "supernatural" or "spiritual" realm and entities when there is no evidence for their existence, and Goddidit isn't of much help in physics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok, a holy flame could be understood as a material substance, and then we're back to the Cosmic Egg theory. I don't see what would be so holy about it in that case. Ok, maybe it would be the object of some atheist's veneration.
Every belief about origins boils down to two options: Either the universe came from simply matter, or from a conscious being. Either ultimate or original reality is conscious or not. Therefore the question of which God is not relevant to the question of whether God exists (defined as the conscious creator of the universe).
In a significant sense, all religious people believe in the same God, just differ on various details as to what he/she/it is like. All the religions I mentioned above agree on a majority of God's attributes, such as wisdom, power, goodness, eternity. Even the flying spaghetti monster is not a rival God, but rather the dubious proposition that the true God happens to have spaghettiness as a significant attribute.
If one is once convinced that God exists, the question remains if any religion is true, and if so which, and if not whether religions have value. But that's the topic for another thread.

It is holy because it is the eternal supernatural flame from which our world originated. In some sense, all religious people believe in the Flame. They just differ on various details as to what the Flame is like. Some make the dubious proposition that the Flame happens to have personhood as a significant attribute.