Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

By "game in town" I was referring to you getting from a singular deity to one resembling the Christian deity.

That's question #2: we're still speaking only of question #1, which we have not resolved yet: and that is, does ANY First Cause exist? Until we solve that, there's no relevance to debating the NATURE of a First Cause you don't even believe exists.

Pantheism does not posit "little gods". I suggest you (re???)read Spinoza.

Spinoza was not a Pantheist, but a Panentheist. But Spinoza, too, believed in God. In fact, God is in "that's the 'en' in Panentheism." God is said to be "in" all, but not exhausted by the physical world.

But you will find that I simply ignore your insults, Mike. I know what they signify: desperation and the loss of logic and civility in discourse, not refutation of an argument.

And NO, physical evidence does NOT support material things ever being created by immaterial things.

What is supports is the evidence of design and intelligence in the generation of the universe.

Or have you some evidence that nothing can create something out of nothing?

A) You are beating a straw horse.

I think the expression is "dead horse." And no, I'm focusing on the first question in logical order.

b) Spinoza was NOT a Panentheist but a Pantheist. A Panentheist believes that God is in all that was created AND exists apart from that which was created << you had the definition of panentheist correct, just not in agreement with Spinoza >>

It really doesn't matter. Here's what Prospect magazine says about Spinoza:

"Spinoza’s philosophy does not trivialise God in the slightest. It is true that in his conception God is intimately bound up with nature. But just because God is not separate from the world that does not mean He is identical to it. Actually, He is distinct, because there is a relationship of dependence that travels only one way: we are constitutionally dependent on God, but God is not dependent on us, argues Spinoza.

For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God’s power. Carlisle uses the term “being-in-God” to describe this aspect of Spinoza’s thought: the way we are created by—and conceived through—God."

The outcome is the same, whether I believe your version of Spinoza, or that of Prospect magazine, or my own readings.

c) There is no evidence of "design" in the material world.

That's denial of the obvious evidence of irreducible complexity, and even of your own nature. But you can do that...I just think it's not very good to deny yourself the evidence.

d) I would like you to explain how you get some things, from where in "causality" (that you believe), about the creator deity, and FOR THAT PURPOSE need to grant not only "a first cause exists" but also adding "exactly one".

Well, now you're trying to get on to question number 2 without having accepted question number 1. The first question is, does ANY ultimate Cause exist, and the second is, what is the nature of that Cause?

For question 1, you have only randomness and universal eternality as an alternative to a First Cause. We can know, and should know, that the universe is not past-eternal, and that randomness does not generate order...especially highly refined degrees of symbiotic and coordinated order. We know because of science, of empirical observation, of mathematics, of logic and of personal experience. So we have multiple strands of evidence against the randomness hypothesis, and in favour of intelligent design.

So if you're now admitting the necessity of a First Cause, we could go forward and ask about the nature of any such Cause. Are you at that point?

[Will Bouwman]

...physical evidence does NOT support material things ever being created by immaterial things.

What is supports is the evidence of design and intelligence in the generation of the universe.

Gentlemen, physical evidence can support pretty much any hypothesis you wish to support.

Or have you some evidence that nothing can create something out of nothing?

It's exactly the same evidence that you support your god hypothesis with: there is (at least experience of) a universe out there. What evidence do you have that nothing cannot create something out of nothing?
Just a heads up; you only have a logical argument based on the premise that something cannot come from nothing. You have no evidence. I mean, if yer gonna get into logic, then if ever there were nothing, there was no limits to the nothingness. So infinite nothing, but nothing plus infinity is infinity, therefore there was never nothing. Now you might choose to believe that the infinity was your supreme being, but if it was infinite, then creation can only subtract from that particular infinity, therefore, if your god was infinite once, he isn't now. Wait, that would be your Jesus Christ, no doubt infinite in loveliness, but materially restricted. It's a mathematical certainty. On the plus side, for godbotherers, maths proves nothing about ontology. On the other hand, infinity + -infinity = nothing, and who knows enough about nothing (there are some candidates) to prove that nothing can't decay into + and - ?

[MikeNovack]

So if you're now admitting the necessity of a First Cause, we could go forward and ask about the nature of any such Cause. Are you at that point?

Absolutely not. You seem to not understand that
1) X
2) X implies Y
Are independent statements. Either could be true or false without regard to the other.

I do NOT have to accept the necessity of a first cause to discuss "if there is a first cause, then what is implied". Nor do you. My willingness to discuss "if a first cause then x, y, z" DOES NOT imply my acceptance of a first cause or that a first cause implies exactly one first cause (you think you can derive that; I say you can't, it would be another axiom, etc. )

[Immanuel Can]

So if you're now admitting the necessity of a First Cause, we could go forward and ask about the nature of any such Cause. Are you at that point?

Absolutely not.

Then you and I have absolutely nowhere to go. We can't debate with you the nature of things you simply don't believe exist. You can't possibly have an opinion about that, and nothing I say will seem to you to be relevant to anything real.

[Immanuel Can]

Or have you some evidence that nothing can create something out of nothing?

It's exactly the same evidence that you support your god hypothesis with:

Actually, it's not.

If you don't see the design in it, you're not looking at the universe. The complexity, sophistication, interdependence and interrelationships are astronomically unlikely, and essentially impossible to something like randomness. So you're looking, but you're not seeing what's there. Randomness can never do -- and certainly has never done, in your experience -- the phenomena you see right in front of your own eyes.

You have no evidence.

None you will acknowledge, but plenty of it, actually. And it's right in front of your eyes. But not everybody with eyes in his head chooses to see.

I suppose that only confirms the truth that there are many "...people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rm. 1:18-20).

[Impenitent]

1,000,000 years ago, there were no humans as we know them today... there was nothing...

Eh? Surely there was Rachel Welch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EKtNGcyhSY

as well as her camera crew...

and stop calling me Surely

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

So if you're now admitting the necessity of a First Cause, we could go forward and ask about the nature of any such Cause. Are you at that point?

Absolutely not.

Then you and I have absolutely nowhere to go. We can't debate with you the nature of things you simply don't believe exist. You can't possibly have an opinion about that, and nothing I say will seem to you to be relevant to anything real.

I will repeat, I do not have to TAKE A POSITION on the truth or falsity of X before discussing the proposition X implies Y. For some (non-rational) reason you seem to think I do. That would make it rather hard for you to understand science.

For example, take the two statements "ether" exists and if "ether" exists then the result of the experiment (Michelson-Morley) would be X. The whole point was to use the truth of the second to test the truth of the first. If we do this experiment will the result be X (the "ether" theory could be true) or something other than X (the "ether" theory is false)

"So if you're now admitting the necessity of a First Cause, we could go forward and ask about the nature of any such Cause."
Shows you do not even know what you are saying. That is nonsensical. As long as still "a first cause" << if you haven't gotten to "one" >> you couldn't yet talk of THE nature of any particular one of the first causes. You could discuss a nature that A first cause has (at least one of them has that nature) but of several natures, not that any first cause had all of them.

BUT -- You asked me to explain the materialist position (on the design/chance question) << and as long as you can refrain from assuming that I am personally a materialist >> Did you look at the "introduction to chance" I posted? I need to hear from you that you understood that before proceeding with a materialist argument for "the universe by chance".

In other words, if p1, the probability of an event is very small, nevertheless there exists some number N1 such that (1 - p1) ** N1 > 1/2 (more likely than not) and some greater number N2 such that (1 - p1) **N2 approaches 1 (the event is very likely)

[Immanuel Can]

Absolutely not.

Then you and I have absolutely nowhere to go. We can't debate with you the nature of things you simply don't believe exist. You can't possibly have an opinion about that, and nothing I say will seem to you to be relevant to anything real.

I will repeat, I do not have to TAKE A POSITION on the truth or falsity of X before discussing the proposition X implies Y.

Nobody said it did. What I did say was that we can't discuss the special features of something you insist doesn't even exist. That would be as stupid as getting into an argument over whether unicorns are pink or gold.

In other words, your question reads: "What sort of God(s) doesn't exist?" If you can make sense of such a question, you're better than I am.

Either you know that there had to be a First Cause, or you don't understand the argument, or you don't want to understand the argument. I don't know which it is, but the outcome is the same...there's no next move.

[Will Bouwman]

Or have you some evidence that nothing can create something out of nothing?

It's exactly the same evidence that you support your god hypothesis with:

Actually, it's not.

Oh yes it is.

If you don't see the design in it, you're not looking at the universe.

It is exactly the same universe you are looking at. The main difference is that you wish to attribute it to your god.

The complexity, sophistication, interdependence and interrelationships are astronomically unlikely, and essentially impossible to something like randomness. So you're looking, but you're not seeing what's there.

I see all that, but I also see plausible alternatives to your interpretation. The fact is that nobody knows what conditions existed prior to the big bang, but with some understanding of quantum mechanics, a pinch of nuclear physics, a grasp on chemical bonding and a grown up appreciation of evolution, suddenly a god is not the only option.

Randomness can never do -- and certainly has never done, in your experience -- the phenomena you see right in front of your own eyes.

Ah yes, throw in some emergence. You seem to view randomness in some Humean 'who knows where the billiard ball will go next' way. That sort of randomness is what we would expect if some god intervenes with the normal behaviour of matter. We do not see such things.

You have no evidence.

None you will acknowledge, but plenty of it, actually. And it's right in front of your eyes. But not everybody with eyes in his head chooses to see.

Now, now Mr Can, you're cheating again. The context is this:

Just a heads up; you only have a logical argument based on the premise that something cannot come from nothing. You have no evidence.

You have no evidence that something cannot come from nothing.

I suppose that only confirms the truth that there are many "...people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rm. 1:18-20).

Tell your god that is ad hominem.

[Immanuel Can]

If you don't see the design in it, you're not looking at the universe.

It is exactly the same universe you are looking at.

I won't say you're lying about that. But then, either that's not the case, since you see no evidence of design in something so obviously designed, or you're not really seeing what you are looking at.

The complexity, sophistication, interdependence and interrelationships are astronomically unlikely, and essentially impossible to something like randomness. So you're looking, but you're not seeing what's there.

I see all that, but I also see plausible alternatives to your interpretation.

What would one of these "plausible alternatives" be? Randomness is the only alternative to design available, and it's implausible, based on the evidence you admit to seeing. So what's left?

The fact is that nobody knows what conditions existed prior to the big bang,

Did something cause the BB? Or are you supposing there was no cause? I think you can see the only reasonable supposition there, even if you were not present at the BB.

Randomness can never do -- and certainly has never done, in your experience -- the phenomena you see right in front of your own eyes.

Ah yes, throw in some emergence.

"Emergence" is a non-explanation.

...the premise that something cannot come from nothing. You have no evidence.

Actually, design is rather easy to detect. If you find a cell phone on the ground, you know it was not caused by randomness. It has a couple of telltale qualities: 1. It's irreducibly complex, such that it could not have happened by randomness, and 2. It has specificity; a cell phone is designed FOR something, it has a function and a purpose. And these features you will find in all designed things, and in no random ones.

You have no evidence that something cannot come from nothing.

Listen to yourself, and you're going to laugh. Your argument is now, "Nothing caused something." Well, since "nothing" is a "nothing," you're not explaining anything. You also won't find a single case of that ever happening in real life.

I suppose that only confirms the truth that there are many "...people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rm. 1:18-20).

Tell your god that is ad hominem.

For Him, it's not ad hominem. It's accurate diagnosis. That's one of the advantages of omniscience, that you and I do not have. As the Word says, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart."

[Immanuel Can]

Absolutely not.

Then you and I have absolutely nowhere to go. We can't debate with you the nature of things you simply don't believe exist. You can't possibly have an opinion about that, and nothing I say will seem to you to be relevant to anything real.

I will repeat,

And you'll still be wrong.

I do not have to TAKE A POSITION on the truth or falsity of X before discussing the proposition X implies Y.

Since I never said that, I feel no obligation to respond. What I said is that you and I are not able to debate something you think is simply unreal. You can have no opinion on how many unicorns can dance on the head of a pin. There are no criteria we can commonly draw on to resolve such a question.

For example, take the two statements "ether" exists and if "ether" exists then the result of the experiment (Michelson-Morley) would be X.

That's different. You'd have to be open to the possibility that ether COULD exist. If you weren't, you'd not being experimenting, but merely dogmatizing. You'd have already assumed your conclusion, and refused to consider the possibility your experiment would yield any other result: that has nothing to do with science, obviously.

The problem is not that you "do not have to take a position." By refusing the evidence, you've already taken one. You've refused the mathematical, empirical and even personal demonstrations of the necessity of a First Cause. Therefore, you're committed to the assumption that no such thing is real. And that's precisely why "unicorns" seem to you to be a proper comparison, isn't it?

[promethean75]

I'm sorry, Immanuel C., but 'design' can not be infered from what is observed in the universe. Well, it can... philosophically... but not scientifically, i mean. Like you can't run an experiment like you can when testing a theory of gravity and sending a satellite into Jupiter's orbit to measure the planet's gravitational force or some such gratuitous irresponsibly chosen program spending tax dollars that should be itemized for domestic, erfly problems, first, before we worry about what's going on on a planet we'll likely never get to.

You can't lower yourself into a Bible as if it were a bathtub to observe the changes in water level like the greek dude did. There's no way to confirm accurate predictions with ID theory. You couldn't say "god decided to destroy everything" when our sun explodes with anything lending support to that theory. Contrarily, you could just say that in our universe, there seems to be a constant chemical/physical rule that when helium is burned up, x and y happen, etc. You could forward that as a decent candidate for a theoretical prediction because we have observed this happen with regularity in our universe... or... we haven't yet observed it but can infer it from what we know about the nature of stars, condensed gases, etc.

And consider this. At each point in the mystery of life - the monomeric molecules organizing, electrical charges causing membranes to move, the f****** things splitting in two and forming two identical cells.... all that creepy shit - whatever evolutionary theory is offered as an explanation is already better than a Biblical one... and for so many obvious reasons that i hope I wouldn't have to explain. You've read Frank Herbert's Dune series, yes? Same thing only written in hebrew.

And where our scientific theories end and we have very weird unexplained things left (e.g. how the female egg closes the gates the moment the spermatazoon gains unlawful entry), we don't get to say "see, that's where the bible comes in. Brocephus 12.5 said that the works of god are always a mystery to man... except for this part of the work, which isn't a mystery" or "that's why Biblical creationism must be true, then." For all you know, Hinduism might be true, and giant galactus sized godz might be roaming the universe like on some Lovecraft level shit, bruh.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry, Immanuel C., but 'design' can not be infered from what is observed in the universe. Well, it can... philosophically... but not scientifically, i mean.

It doesn't have to be "inferred." It's quite obvious. We have NO cases of randomness producing the phenomena we observe. None.

[promethean75]

That is anthropomorphic language, though. Check this out. Calling something 'random' doesn't (can't) mean it isn't caused or part of an order of events. There is nuance here that mustn't be overlooked. When we think 'random' what we mean is 'lacking premeditated intent' and 'unpredicted' (in chaos theory). But something need not be intended or foreseeable to be necessarily causally ordered (unless you want to claim the regularity we observe in nature is just spontaneously happening... that every acorn becomes a tree not through a series of biochemical processes all proceeding and following each other for millions of years, but just incidentally, in the same procession, every time.)

Chaos is not a real state of affairs. What it is is a consequence of not being omniscient. The hurricane absolutely was caused by an ordered series of antecedent conditions. I keep tryna explain this to the spooky Heraclitean philosophers who are all like, "omg chaos, dude! Life is war and we shall reign supreme!" I'm like bro relax life doesn't actually go that hard, usually.

But no, yeah. Evolution is precisely the opposite of randomness. Gene mutations moving speciation are called random... but that's only because we have a design, a 'monkey' in mind, when we look at a genome. But there is only one animal, one long continuum of strange jungle creature that shape shifts into to anything from a paramecium to a Vegas used car salesman named Douglas Pendleton.

[MikeNovack]

I'm sorry, Immanuel C., but 'design' can not be infered from what is observed in the universe. Well, it can... philosophically... but not scientifically, i mean.

It doesn't have to be "inferred." It's quite obvious. We have NO cases of randomness producing the phenomena we observe. None.

You persist in not saying whether you understood that "intro to chance" post. I will have to assume you did read and understand.

You believe your God existed eternally, had no beginning. Then you must allow the secularist that same eternity. Given that infinity, there is nothing however improbable that would not eventually become likely. Only events with ZERO probability (impossible events) would not occur.

Flipping a (n honest) coin and getting a billion heads in a row is not impossible. In fact, rather certain if you flipped that coin 2 **(billion * billion) times. Infinite prior eternity enough time for that.

And stop being idiotic abut you nonsense "you are denying the existence of God(s)". Stupid question, IC, but have never been in a debate class or club? You get assigned which side of an argument to take.

I do believe that the "argument from causes" can get you to "there exists at least one first cause" << but not enough to get you to "exactly one" or to assign attributes "by intent" or "cares about", etc. I believe the "intelligent design" concept also does not get yu very far toward the sort of deity you believe in. You also have good reason to suppose I do not believe in "The Christian God". You cannot convert that, even influenced by your belief that is the one and only true god" into "he doesn't believe in a god or gods".