Prove me wrong: there is no God

[seeds]

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?

Sorry, Will, me old bean, but with IC using this argument...

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.

...which pairs nicely with one of my favorite quotes from Terence McKenna,...

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”

...again, with IC using the above argument, I’m afraid he is giving you and MikeNovack what George Galloway would call - "a bloody good hiding."

Now, if only I could get him to stop thinking that the “Designer” of the universe is a SADISTIC MONSTER who plans on torturing defenseless beings,...

...not for a minute, not for an hour, not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, not for a year --> but for ETERNITY --> all for an utterly senseless and vanity-based reason,...

(as if there could be any justifiable reason whatsoever)

...then he would make a good ally in my own argument for the existence of, again, the “Designer” of the universe.
_______

[promethean75]

"The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe"

Your homeboy Terence has got it backward, I'm afraid. A miracle would be complete nothingness, emptiness, a void. We know this immediately because we experience matter everywhere, and it couldn't have come from or out of nothing. If you believe it did, i have some ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.

Seeds, i think you're so spaced out by now you don't know which way is up. Please post that picture from the Jimi Hendrix album you always post with the eyes 'n stuff.

"stop thinking that the “Designer” of the universe is a SADISTIC MONSTER"

26,000 childrens a day die from preventable causes. This is a designer I want over for dinner.

[MikeNovack]

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”

...again, with IC using the above argument, I’m afraid he is giving you and MikeNovack what George Galloway would call - "a bloody good hiding."

Now, if only I could get him to stop thinking that the “Designer” of the universe is a SADISTIC MONSTER who plans on torturing defenseless beings,...

...not for a minute, not for an hour, not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, not for a year --> but for ETERNITY --> all for an utterly senseless and vanity-based reason,...

(as if there could be any justifiable reason whatsoever)

...then he would make a good ally in my own argument for the existence of, again, the “Designer” of the universe.
_______

NOT going to (in THIS thread) argue about what "the material universe appearing in an instant" actually means. Except to point out that "the material universe" is what is OBSERVABLE. That makes it senseless to even think about "what was BEFORE the "big bang" since would not be observable (from inside the material universe)

When arguing about "First Cause" and "designer" I am NOT, repeat NOT, arguing against either. I do not have to. I am making claim that neither gets people using these to get to where they think they are getting. That they are, in fact, using other (additional) assumptions to get where they want to get.

IF there is a First Cause then there is only one First Cause.
<< show how this would be derived from JUST the assumptions made to get to "there is a (at least one) First Cause" >>
Remember, you do NOT have "if x is a cause of z and y is a cause of z then x = y". You do not want to have this as an assumption because you do not believe "cause" works that way << think fire, three causes >>

I do not believe that the users of the "first cause" argument are satisfied to end up with "there is at least one god" (one or more). The same with the "must be a designer" argument (one or more).

I also do not believe they would be satisfied without "by intent" and "cares about". In other words, I am saying that even exactly one isn't enough for their purposes. << to work for "design" the sculptor example was poor, so replace with a flint knapper (intends the design of the surface of the flake, but of course where the flake came from has the same design in negative) >>

[Immanuel Can]

...which pairs nicely with one of my favorite quotes from Terence McKenna,...

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”

Nice quotation! Quite right.

But they're even asking for a second miracle: that they would be granted that life exists. And a third: that this life is intelligent, rational, and linked in such a corresponding way with the external universe that it can decode the reality in which it finds itself, using science, so Mike, Will and I can be creatures capable of the present analysis.

How many miracles is that, now? How much would I have to grant Mike and Will as unexaminable facts, not ever to be questioned or involved in any account of origins, prior to getting to their present question?

Quite a bit, I'm thinking.

Thanks for the quotation. That's worth remembering.

[seeds]

"The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe"

Your homeboy Terence has got it backward, I'm afraid. A miracle would be complete nothingness, emptiness, a void. We know this immediately because we experience matter everywhere, and it couldn't have come from or out of nothing. If you believe it did, i have some ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.

Seeds, i think you're so spaced out by now you don't know which way is up. Please post that picture from the Jimi Hendrix album you always post with the eyes 'n stuff.

"stop thinking that the “Designer” of the universe is a SADISTIC MONSTER"

26,000 childrens a day die from preventable causes. This is a designer I want over for dinner.

promethean75, please stay at the kids' table (with Age) and let the adults talk about "adult things."

Don't you have an appointment with the dentist to get some gold filigree for your "grill"?
_______

[MikeNovack]

But they're even asking for a second miracle: that they would be granted that life exists. And a third: that this life is intelligent, rational, and linked in such a corresponding way with the external universe that it can decode the reality in which it finds itself, using science, so Mike, Will and I can be creatures capable of the present analysis.

a) WHY would you consider those "miracles" (not in accordance with natural processes). You are using the term "miracle" in a different sense. Terms can have ore than one meaning, and "miracle" is a term like that. You can't derive anything by using one meaning of a term and then associating to a different meaning of the term. That sort of error is precisely what we prevent when switching to formal notation.

b) I will repeat the challenge. For either "there exists a god" (one or more) and/or "there exists a designer" (one or more) or "a god created the universe" (one or more) derive any/all of these << without adding additional assumptions beyond what you used to get to "cause" and "design" >>

"there is exactly one god"
"this god created the universe by intent"
"this god cares about the universe"
"this god cares about what I do"

Take note of what assumptions you are adding to get there, and when you have all of them, ask if they alone would have been enough without the cause and design business << in other words, was all that irrelevant? >>

AND STOP THIS NONSENSE ABOUT ME (personally) BEING A MATERIALIST. You cannot derive that from what I have been saying. I have not been questioning whether or not there is a god or gods. I am questioning what our beliefs are based on, what assumptions are we making to get there.

I am claiming that neither "causes" nor "designed" gets you to monotheism, creation by intent, caring, etc. I am claiming that no observation of the natural world will help. I am pointing out (again and again) that this claim is does NOT mean I do not believe in a God.

[promethean75]

"Don't you have an appointment with the dentist"

I should but no. These goddamn wisdom teeth are coming in all the way now and crowding my whole grill. You know how the left front one is all crooked and twisted out? Well, it's continuing to move and gradually getting worse. This is what happens when you are a misbehaved juvenile delinquent in and out of juvi instead of the dentist's office like normal kids getting their wisdom teeth removed.

Then i go to get a fragment from a broken tooth removed a couple years ago, and bro hits me like four times with the novacaine. Nothing. In fact, it almost hurts more now. I couldn't hold out... couldn't do it, so i walked out. Now, if i can't handle getting a simple broken tooth removed, i sure as shit can't handle the extraction of a fully rooted wisdom tooth. And i got like three of em. So f*** you, your friends and their perfect teeth. I have WISDOM... and that's better than straight teeth.

[Immanuel Can]

But they're even asking for a second miracle: that they would be granted that life exists. And a third: that this life is intelligent, rational, and linked in such a corresponding way with the external universe that it can decode the reality in which it finds itself, using science, so Mike, Will and I can be creatures capable of the present analysis.

a) WHY would you consider those "miracles" (not in accordance with natural processes).

You're not getting it. Before the origin point, there are no "natural processes." There are no laws, materials...even time itself doesn't yet exist. So there's no "nature" to which you can appeal, yet. And yet, you want us to suppose that out of this void, a "something" spontaneously popped? That nothing created something?

If that's not appeal to a miracle, I have no idea what you're appealing to.

b) I will repeat the challenge.

It isn't a "challenge." It isn't even the kind of question you can rationally ask, at the present stage.

For either "there exists a god" (one or more) and/or "there exists a designer" (one or more) or "a god created the universe" (one or more) derive any/all of these << without adding additional assumptions beyond what you used to get to "cause" and "design" >>

"there is exactly one god"
"this god created the universe by intent"
"this god cares about the universe"
"this god cares about what I do"

These are all good questions: but every one of them is moot, unless you start by realizing there has to be a "Something" at the beginning, a First Cause. When you don't, they're all merely fantasy questions; and fantasy questions lack any basis to resolve them.

AND STOP THIS NONSENSE ABOUT ME (personally) BEING A MATERIALIST.

Read more carefully, Mike, I think you'll find that you're less unreasonably offended. You'll note that I didn't say you were: I said IF you had been. In other words, even if you had chosen to be a Materialist, the point would be exactly the same. Or, to put it another way, even a Materialist is going to arrive at the same conclusion, if he's rational.

But that you're not a Materialist is interesting, if you insist. In what do you believe, then?

[promethean75]

Science gives us the big-bang, but philosophy prevents us from accepting it, gentlemen. We know something can't come from nothing as sure as Socrates knew that triangles consist of three sides.

[Immanuel Can]

Science gives us the big-bang, but philosophy prevents us from accepting it, gentlemen.

Why? Nobody has to argue about the BB. But what caused the BB? In what sort of pre-existing "substance" did it take place, and why then? And what caused whatever caused the BB? And what...and so on...That's the actual question here.

[seeds]

But they're even asking for a second miracle: that they would be granted that life exists. And a third: that this life is intelligent, rational, and linked in such a corresponding way with the external universe that it can decode the reality in which it finds itself, using science, so Mike, Will and I can be creatures capable of the present analysis.

a) WHY would you consider those "miracles" (not in accordance with natural processes).

There is no doubting or denying the fact that it is an intractable mystery as to how the miraculous substance - from which all of reality is created - came into existence.

To me, the mystery is so profound that if the Creator of this universe does indeed exist, then I have often wondered if even she (he / It) knows the answer.

However, regardless of the seemingly unsolvable nature of that mystery, it is obvious that the unthinkable order laid out before our senses is all "real" and truly does exist.

And the point is that to naively assume that all of this order is simply the result of "chance," is infinitely less logical than it is to assume that something "intelligent" is responsible for what we are seeing and experiencing.

Everyone just needs to realize that the silly nonsense that has been handed down to us from ancient minds in the form of the world's religions,...

...in no way comes close to helping us visualize the level of consciousness and intelligence that somehow managed to create two trillion galaxies of suns and planets (and us).

However, you can at least begin to visualize that higher intelligence if you'll just use the method of imagining the difference in consciousness and capabilities between an amoeba and that of a human.

Or, more accurately, the difference in consciousness and capabilities between that of an in utero human zygote and that of its mother.

b) I will repeat the challenge. For either "there exists a god" (one or more) and/or "there exists a designer" (one or more) or "a god created the universe" (one or more) derive any/all of these << without adding additional assumptions beyond what you used to get to "cause" and "design" >>

"there is exactly one god"
"this god created the universe by intent"
"this god cares about the universe"
"this god cares about what I do"

I know it's difficult, but I suggest that the first thing you need to do is lose the baggage-laden word "god" and try to replace it with the idea of the "Creator / Designer" of the universe as simply being the fully-evolved, fully-matured - "Adult" version of what you are.

Or, more accurately, see it as being what the fully-evolved, fully-matured - "Adult" version of what your "mind/soul" is capable of becoming.

Indeed, if you can just take the idea of a human "mind/soul" being imbued (at birth) with the teleological (seed-like) impetus of eventually blossoming into a universe - a literal universe that is created from the living mental fabric of its very own being,...

...and then apply that same concept to what we visualize as being the "seed-like" beginning of this universe,...

...then not only will there be less of a mystery as to how the universe acquired its order,...

... but you will also understand why I refer to humans as being the "Ultimate Seeds" in all of existence.

AND STOP THIS NONSENSE ABOUT ME (personally) BEING A MATERIALIST. You cannot derive that from what I have been saying. I have not been questioning whether or not there is a god or gods. I am questioning what our beliefs are based on, what assumptions are we making to get there.

That is an excellent attitude to hold. It suggests to me that if you could view the Creator of the universe from a more logical perspective (again, one that makes sense), then perhaps you might be more open to accepting the possibility of her (his, its) existence.

And yes, you are absolutely correct to question the veracity (or lack thereof) of all of the simple-minded concepts (nonsense) that have been handed down to us from ancient minds.
_______

[MikeNovack]

I know it's difficult, but I suggest that the first thing you need to do is lose the baggage-laden word "god" and try to replace it with the idea of the "Creator / Designer" of the universe as simply being the fully-evolved, fully-matured - "Adult" version of what you are.

Or, more accurately, see it as being what the fully-evolved, fully-matured - "Adult" version of what your "mind/soul" is capable of becoming.

Indeed, if you can just take the idea of a human "mind/soul" being imbued (at birth) with the teleological (seed-like) impetus of eventually blossoming into a universe - a literal universe that is created from the living mental fabric of its very own being,...

...and then apply that same concept to what we visualize as being the "seed-like" beginning of this universe,...

...then not only will there be less of a mystery as to how the universe acquired its order,...

... but you will also understand why I refer to humans as being the "Ultimate Seeds" in all of existence.

AND STOP THIS NONSENSE ABOUT ME (personally) BEING A MATERIALIST. You cannot derive that from what I have been saying. I have not been questioning whether or not there is a god or gods. I am questioning what our beliefs are based on, what assumptions are we making to get there.

That is an excellent attitude to hold. It suggests to me that if you could view the Creator of the universe from a more logical perspective (again, one that makes sense), then perhaps you might be more open to accepting the possibility of her (his, its) existence.

And yes, you are absolutely correct to question the veracity (or lack thereof) of all of the simple-minded concepts (nonsense) that have been handed down to us from ancient minds.
_______

You DON'T "get it".

You are (like IC) persisting in assuming I don't believe in any god or gods. Nor am I hung up over whether the term "god" is used for a "first cause" or "designer".

I am arguing that neither "argument from must be a first cause" or "there must be a designer" BY THEMSELVES can justify the typical beliefs of people trying to use those as justifications. That they are using (MUST be using) additional assumptions/axioms and suggesting that perhaps one these have been identified they alone sufficient to the task (no need for "causes" or "designer".

PLEASE -- try this for yourself. Try to get from "there is a first cause" (one or more) to "there is exactly one first cause" WITHOUT adding another assumption/axiom. What is the belief you are adding?

I can be certain that you WILL have to add a belief because a different belief/assumption about how many first causes does not "clash" with the assumptions that have been made about how "causes" behaves. I will repeat, I am NOT calling this added belief/assumption wrong, and for all you know, I myself might believe it true. But I believe:
a) It IS additional
b) Depending on how worded, could make the whole argument from causes unnecessary.

[Immanuel Can]

You are (like IC) persisting in assuming I don't believe in any god or gods.

As you found out if you checked, I didn't "persist" in that at all.

I am arguing that neither "argument from must be a first cause" or "there must be a designer" BY THEMSELVES can justify the typical beliefs of people trying to use those as justifications.

That's irrelevant. As I've pointed out before, step 1 is whether or not there is ANY First Cause, and step 2 is what the NATURE of that First Cause might be. Step 2 assumes step 1. Unless you also are prepared to assume step 1, which you clearly are not, then you can't reasonably ask about step 2.

[Will Bouwman]

...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.

Okie-dokie. One possible first cause is a supernatural being: the god you believe in, for example; other god hypotheses are available. Then there's all the non god hypotheses. Lots of those, many of which are predicated on particular conditions, which would be pointless to describe in the current context. So let's cut to the chase:

We're asking, essentially, how all the "somethings" we see around us can have come from NOTHING.

Well, you're someone who puts a lot of faith in mathematics when it suits your argument. Nothing (no need to shout), is a product of plus and minus and while it seems intuitively certain that nothing must necessarily be stable, we have no nothing on which test the hypothesis. The decay of nothing into positive and negative is taken seriously and raises the issue of why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. I won't go into it, but anyone interested can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

[Will Bouwman]

Sorry, Will, me old bean, but with IC using this argument...

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.

...which pairs nicely with one of my favorite quotes from Terence McKenna,...

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”

...again, with IC using the above argument, I’m afraid he is giving you and MikeNovack what George Galloway would call - "a bloody good hiding."

Apparently you have led a charmed life and have never been on the receiving end of a bloody good hiding. I am not taking for granted any of things Mr Can lists and, as I said:

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."

Good luck finding that quote.

It is a terrible argument, but it is one that Mr Can made up. As for the McKenna quote, it might seem like that, but science isn't homogenised as he, you or Mr Can evidently believe. There are lots of different scientists with lots of different ideas. Some might be convinced that a particular version of events is true, but a characteristic of any scientist worth their salt is that the words 'I don't know' don't get stuck in their throat.

Now, if only I could get him to stop thinking that the “Designer” of the universe is a SADISTIC MONSTER who plans on torturing defenseless beings,...

Well, as Xenophanes said:
The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.