Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Will Bouwman]

Randomness is the only alternative to design available...

As I said, you seem to think that randomness implies that in the absence of a god pulling the strings, reality would behave in unpredictable ways. In my view, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a brick to fall down the well every time you drop one. Only a supernatural being could cause a brick to behave unnaturally. Show me a brick not falling down a well, or any other miracle.

[MikeNovack]

But more to the point, IC needs to explain HOW he would get from "there exists a designer or designers of the universe" to anything even vaguely resembling the god in which he believes.

Please explain, IC, how do you get from (just) that to "the deity is like the God I believe in"? (as opposed to say "The Great Pink Unicorn" or "the team of student gods creating a universe as their joint term paper").

If you are just arguing in opposition to those claiming "there is no god" well and good, but you AREN'T just arguing against the secularists. It might actually help you to look at and respond to the "sculptor" dialog. You want to understand from where you get things like "not only is there a god but there is only one god and this god created the universe by intent and cares about it".

PLEASE -- I am NOT saying there is anything wrong with holding those beliefs BUT you need to recognize you can't be getting them from "there is a (at least one) first cause" or "the universe has a design". Seriously, if you think you can, demonstrate it. Understand, the reason I think you cannot (impossible) is that I can easily envision alternatives that would satisfy the "first cause" and "intelligent design" arguments. If I take as axioms, "there is more than one god", "the universe was not created by intent", or "no god cares about the universe" there appears to be no conflict with "there exists a first cause" of "the universe was designed"". << note: for the last, the sculptor example needs but a little tweaking. I'm telling you this (that I know of a tweak that would work) to save you from jumping to "gotcha". >>

[Immanuel Can]

Randomness is the only alternative to design available...

As I said, you seem to think that randomness implies that in the absence of a god pulling the strings, reality would behave in unpredictable ways.

Of course that's exactly what it implies. If it starts behaving in a regulated way, you can be quite certain it's not random. And the universe behaves in very regulated ways.

In my view, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a brick to fall down the well every time you drop one.

You're already taking for granted natural laws, regularities and design. Without them, there's not only no gravity, but no wells, and no bricks. Even bricks need the strong and weak forces in the atom to be at their precise balance in order for the matter of which the brick is composed to have any integrity. And your analogy needs laws of motion, gravitation, momentum, density and so forth already to be in place, and already operating. And it requires such a human-designed artifact as a well to exist, as well, which require life, and intelligence, and human craftsmanship to be a real thing. And, of course, it assumes the universe itself, which has its own multitude of fine-tuned laws and regularities, also to exist already, so as to convenience wells and bricks.

So you're looking at the universe as we find it, paying no attention whatsoever to the design of it, and saying, "Look: whatever this thing is, it seems to work, so it can't be designed."

Terrible argument, that.

[Immanuel Can]

But more to the point, IC needs to explain HOW he would get from "there exists a designer or designers of the universe" to anything even vaguely resembling the god in which he believes.

I don't, actually. What I need to do is point out to you that we live in a caused universe. And you seem to stick on that point, and can't get any further.

Your faith in "nothingness" is quite touching, actually. You seem to attribute to it infinite creative and design powers. I guess I just lack your faith.

[MikeNovack]

But more to the point, IC needs to explain HOW he would get from "there exists a designer or designers of the universe" to anything even vaguely resembling the god in which he believes.

y in
I don't, actually. What I need to do is point out to you that we live in a caused universe. And you seem to stick on that point, and can't get any further.

Your faith in "nothingness" is quite touching, actually. You seem to attribute to it infinite creative and design powers. I guess I just lack your faith.

In reverse order:

Second ---- No, I was NOT attributing design powers to "nothingness". PLEASE look at that "intro to chance". If there is NO LIMIT to the number of "tries", then an "apparent" pattern (what you would interpret as a pattern) could be chance. Or perhaps better put, there is NO PATTERN (what you perceive as a pattern) that could not be by chance*. Unless you understand that (from the coins all heads up on the table example) you will persist in your false belief "a pattern (what I perceive as a patter) could not be the result of chance"

First ------- HOW does "we live in a caused universe" help you? For some (not rational) reason you persist in thinking I am "sticking on that point" (arguing NOT caused).

I will repeat ---- assume that you HAVE "the universe was caused/designed". How from THAT (JUST that) do you get to "there is only one god", "this god created the universe by intent", and "this god cares about the universe"? You have no interest in arguing that the universe was created by a herd of seven pink unicorns, that this creation was more or less by accident on their part (a byproduct of whatever they were doing), and that they care no more about this universe than they do their footprints.

MANY PEOPLE have believed that the universe was created by a god or gods (or IS God). But the religion of these people does not resemble Christianity in the least, and their god or gods don't resemble the Christian God. I am arguing that "the universe was created" doesn't help you anywhere as much as you think it does.

I want you to look at this seriously and try to answer. How does even "there is only one God and this god created the universe" get you to where you want to go? WHAT (other things) are you believing to be true?

* NOTE -- an experiment in science always should include in its report "and this is the probability the result means something" (as opposed to the null hypothesis, results by chance). The sciences differ on what probability justifies publication of results. From the viewpoint of say Physics, the standards of any of the social sciences shockingly low in that regard << to the point that a rather high percentage of papers published are based on chance results -- of course we can't know which >> This is not to fault the social scientists. It is FAR easier in Physics to design an experiment or collect data such that the likelihood of the null hypothesis is very low.

[MikeNovack]

Is my using "flip" examples getting in your way, IC? Maybe this would work better?

From "the universe was created by one god" indicate why "that god is Cthulhu" doesn't work.

Do you understand? I believe you WILL have good reasons, reasons to believe that "God created the universe" and "God created the universe by intent" and "God cares about the universe". But I do not believe you can derive those from "there is a first cause" (one or more) or "the universe shows evidence of having been designed" (there is a pattern).

FORGET for a moment what I said about "chance" << even though given enough tries, chance can match any supposed pattern >>

[Immanuel Can]

But more to the point, IC needs to explain HOW he would get from "there exists a designer or designers of the universe" to anything even vaguely resembling the god in which he believes.

y in
I don't, actually. What I need to do is point out to you that we live in a caused universe. And you seem to stick on that point, and can't get any further.

Your faith in "nothingness" is quite touching, actually. You seem to attribute to it infinite creative and design powers. I guess I just lack your faith.

In reverse order:

Second ---- No, I was NOT attributing design powers to "nothingness".

Then to what?

PLEASE look at that "intro to chance". If there is NO LIMIT to the number of "tries", then an "apparent" pattern (what you would interpret as a pattern) could be chance.

*Sigh.* This is an old fallacy. It only applies to situations in which there are unlimited recursions, but a limited number of possibilities.

It works with dice. If you have infinite recursions of rolling the dice, the chances of you rolling a '"12" goes from 1:11 to certainty, if you roll the die long enough.

But dice only have six sides each! There are only 12 possibilities represented on the dice. That's why it works.

But in the universe, by definition, there are infinite recursions but also infinite possible combinations! And if you understand infinity, as a concept, it means that there are always infinite other ways the result can turn. So even if you roll the infinite dice for an infinite number of times, you're never ever going to increase the odds of any single outcome appearing. In fact, the odds against any singular outcome you may name will always remain infinite.

So the chances of our finely-tuned universe popping out of an infinite number of random events is infinitely unlikely. Those are odds a rational person would never take.

...assume that you HAVE "the universe was caused/designed". How from THAT (JUST that) do you get to "there is only one god",

I didn't (yet).

I was pointing out the necessity of a First Cause. And there, I was stopping until you caught up. It was you who introduced the red herring of multiple gods and pink unicorns. They have nothing to do with the argument, because as silly as they both are, they both ALSO presume a caused universe and thus, the necessity of a First Cause.

They don't help your case one bit. They're not on your side. If they were on any, it would be mine.

MANY PEOPLE have believed that the universe was created by a god or gods (or IS God). But the religion of these people does not resemble Christianity in the least, and their god or gods don't resemble the Christian God.

So?

Is your argument that if "many" people think different things, nobody can be right? If so, that's really a useless protest. Many people thought the earth was flat. It didn't make it flat. And it certainly didn't mean there was no answer to the question of the shape of the earth. So you've just got one giant non-sequitur there.

Many people may have the wrong religion. In fact, that is absolutely certain to be true, since they contradict each other. WHATEVER you believe to be the truth, even were it just crass Materialism, you necessarily would also believe that all those people are wrong. So...there's no point you can make from the observation that people differ on these things. It's not even a useful observation.

[Will Bouwman]

Randomness is the only alternative to design available...

As I said, you seem to think that randomness implies that in the absence of a god pulling the strings, reality would behave in unpredictable ways.

Of course that's exactly what it implies. If it starts behaving in a regulated way, you can be quite certain it's not random. And the universe behaves in very regulated ways.

You might have heard of a bloke called Isaac Newton; he knew a thing or two about how the universe behaves. His first law of motion is:
Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
Can you explain why you believe it takes a god to prevent a body doing otherwise?

So you're looking at the universe as we find it, paying no attention whatsoever to the design of it...

You're begging the question.

...and saying, "Look: whatever this thing is, it seems to work, so it can't be designed."

Good luck finding that quote.

Terrible argument, that.

What your religion needs is some rule against bearing false witness.

[MikeNovack]

Many people may have the wrong religion. In fact, that is absolutely certain to be true, since they contradict each other. WHATEVER you believe to be the truth, even were it just crass Materialism, you necessarily would also believe that all those people are wrong. So...there's no point you can make from the observation that people differ on these things. It's not even a useful observation.

Apparently you do not think it belongs to you (also).

Patterns: You do perhaps understand that an important function the neural net of our brains is to "detect patterns". This goes way back, important to evaluate the dots of color from the retinas of our eyes and resolve "that's a leopard about to pounce on me". The cost of missing a real pattern is far more than the cost of "seeing" a pattern when just random, so that is how we are biased. We see "figures" in clouds, etc.

Back to the coins on the table:
There are two tables. On table A are three lines of eight coins in each line. They are all heads up.

On table B the three lines are:
tails, heads, tails, tails, tails, heads, heads, heads
tails, heads, heads, tails, heads, heads, heads, heads
tails, heads, heads, tails, tails, heads, tails, tails

Do you recognize a pattern for table A? Does table B look random to you? You can't recognize the meaning of table B?

<< you should smell a rat, that I am pulling a "kuntz" on you >>

hint1: You SHOULD recognize table B, you claim to.

hint2: ASCII

[Immanuel Can]

Many people may have the wrong religion. In fact, that is absolutely certain to be true, since they contradict each other. WHATEVER you believe to be the truth, even were it just crass Materialism, you necessarily would also believe that all those people are wrong. So...there's no point you can make from the observation that people differ on these things. It's not even a useful observation.

Apparently you do not think it belongs to you (also).

"It" belongs to me? I don't get your point.

Back to the coins on the table:

Coins have very limited sides...only two, in fact. For a proper analogy, use infinitely-sided dice, instead.

Now try your analogy.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain why you believe it takes a god to prevent a body doing otherwise?

There's a prior question. Can you explain how there came to be natural law by randomness?

[Will Bouwman]

Can you explain why you believe it takes a god to prevent a body doing otherwise?

There's a prior question. Can you explain how there came to be natural law by randomness?

Well, prior to that: what do you mean by randomness? Do you literally mean that without some supernatural being setting the rules, a natural body would spontaneously change direction or speed?

[Will Bouwman]

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 make-up artist, hair stylist, dresser. Musta been busy back in the day.

and stop calling me Surely

-Imp

Shorry.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain why you believe it takes a god to prevent a body doing otherwise?

There's a prior question. Can you explain how there came to be natural law by randomness?

Well, prior to that: what do you mean by randomness? Do you literally mean that without some supernatural being setting the rules, a natural body would spontaneously change direction or speed?

I mean that without any First Cause (you can say "supernatural being," but that's not my wording here) you don't have any "natural bodies," no "directions," no "speeds," no "natural laws" and, in fact, no universe.

I think perhaps you're imagining the universe already existing...one with "bricks" and "wells" already, or at least physical bodies already in place, and then asking what "rules" might govern such a universe, and what they might indicate. And that would be fair as a second question, but it's not the first. We're NOT assuming an already-existing universe, nor ANY laws, regularities or other things; not even any materials. We're asking, essentially, how all the "somethings" we see around us can have come from NOTHING.

We're wanting to ask how ALL that came about, not just part of it, and not just assuming its existence already. That's what "origin of the universe" implies.

[MikeNovack]

I think perhaps you're imagining the universe already existing...one with "bricks" and "wells" already, or at least physical bodies already in place, and then asking what "rules" might govern such a universe, and what they might indicate. And that would be fair as a second question, but it's not the first. We're NOT assuming an already-existing universe, nor ANY laws, regularities or other things; not even any materials. We're asking, essentially, how all the "somethings" we see around us can have come from NOTHING.

We're wanting to ask how ALL that came about, not just part of it, and not just assuming its existence already. That's what "origin of the universe" implies.

Yes, precisely, and I want you to look for the assumptions/axioms you are using (and challenge WHY you do not recognize that those ARE assumptions/axioms.

Things like "no infinite regression" and not a ring. Here you want to use "not all coming into existence at the same "time" ".

Consider: Spring, summer, fall, winter, spring, summer, fall, winter, spring, ............ This has a START? We have a relation B (immediately precedes) and an axiom "if S1 is a season then there is a season S2 such that s2 = B(S1). But there is no "first season". You argue that a year (a cycle) could not come into existence all at once?
OR -- the earth rests upon the back of a giant turtle, that turtle stands on the back of a turtle, that turtle stands on the back of a turtle, ...... and so you want to say ridiculous, there has to be a "first turtle", and I say FINE, but recognize you are making an assumption, the number of turtles finite, can't be "turtles all the way down".

I am not objecting to your axiom "God always existed" (you are saying CAN exist infinitely into the past) but then you turn around and say "impossible to exist infinitely int the past" << "causes", or "the material realm >>

You don't want to proceed until I have agreed with you about n AXIOM (or the consequence of a set of axioms). IC, it doesn't work that way, I don't have to agree with your set of axioms to say to you, go ahead and use those and see it if you can derive X. I am asking you to show "IF (axiom1, and axipm2, ...., and axiomM) then X" is true. The truth of that "if....then" statement does NOT depend on the truth of any of those axioms. STOP IT! Stop insisting on my accepting any of your axioms as true.