Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Impenitent]

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.

but what Xenophanes neglected to say is that Weebles, while not divine in the least, were not designed by eggs...

-Imp

[Will Bouwman]

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.

but what Xenophanes neglected to say is that Weebles, while not divine in the least, were not designed by eggs...

-Imp

True, but if Weebles had hands and could draw, and could sculpt like men, I would bet my collection of vintage Beanos that their gods would look like very big Weebles.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Actually, there's only one non-god hypothesis: accident, or randomness, or chance...whichever way you want to call it. But let's talk about that hypothesis, whatever dynamic one assigns it.

You're right: it's predicated on "particular conditions," as you put it, of lots of things already being in existence, before any proponents of such even try to start their explanatory task. They need us to grant them time, space, materials, some sort of material-progressivism, natural and physical "laws," the existence of intelligent life and the functionality of rationality (because otherwise, neither you nor I would exist and be capable of the question)..lots of things, lots of "particular conditions."

But the problem is simple: they're asking us to take for granted all the very same things that their origin explanation of the universe is supposed to "explain." In other words, they're explaining nothing; but rather, offering a just-so kind of story to account for the existence of late phenomena, in a story they've simply asked us to believe by total, blind faith. It's blind, because they have to know they were not there at the origin of the universe, and can't explain the irreducible and specific complexity of the known universe, and because mathematics won't support their suppositions.

So they're just saying, "Believe it, though no facts support it." And why? Because it's the only explanation that gets God(s) out of the universe. And that's what they're completely desperate to achieve, even at the cost of severing their brains.

None of this is at all "pointless to describe." In fact, describing it manifests its irrationality. And that's the real reason they don't want you to make them "describe" it. They cannot.

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.

You'll have to point out anywhere where I've done that. In particular, in this argument, you'll have to show how mathematics allows an infinite regress of causes to be possible.

...it seems intuitively certain that nothing must necessarily be stable,

The phrase, "...nothing must be stable..." is amusingly ambiguous. It could mean, "...there is nothing that is stable..." or "...there is a thing called, 'nothing,' which has the quality of being stable." And if, as it seems in this context, it's supposed to mean the latter, then it's just intuitively and logically wrong.

A "nothing" cannot have qualities. It cannot "be tall," or "be heavy," or "be composed of sticks," or "be in Boston," or "be stable." And no kind of convolution of intuition is going to make it plausible to say such a thing. A "nothing," by definition is "no + thing." It has no thingness, no quality of existing, and so absolutely nothing can be predicated of it. It doesn't act, it doesn't have preferences, it doesn't choose, and it certainly doesn't create. It's not even an "it." It's merely the absence of all things.

How, then, does all this "something," this universe, come from a "nothing"?

[MikeNovack]

]
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.

Absolutely not -- Logic 101

To tackle/study the statement X => Y we do NOT have to first show X true. That's because in deriving the proof for an "if..then" we start by opening a process temporarily ASSUMING/PRETENDING all the X's are true, deriving the Y, AND BY AN AXIOM OF LOGIC can close by replacing all that with (x1, x2, ... xn) => Y as a true statement. The truth values of the x's inside this process and outside it are independent.

You are demanding I first address the truth of the x's outside the proof of an "if..then" statement. WHY? If an "if X then Y" statement is true, it is true whether or not X is true. To show you how silly that is, consider the other way we can write "X => Y" as "not X or Y" (which is a true statement when EITHER Y is true or "not X" is true) << in which case we would be starting with (not Y) and trying to derive (not X) >>

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Absolutely not -- Logic 101

To tackle/study the statement X => Y we do NOT have to first show X true.

No, but we do have to have common ground on which to generate an answer. If there is no basis of arbitration, there will be no conclusions.

How can I convince you that something you insist does not exist has particular properties? (Like caring, or morality, or creating, as you have stipulated)

It cannot be done. But if no means to show you God exists is allowed, whose fault is that?

[MikeNovack]

A model of causation to consider: << describe, if you can, what part of "causes" with which inconsistent - NOT "why this model rather than another" >>

Definition: if a thing directly has as its cause a First Cause we will cause it a "second cause"

a) Let there be First Cause(s) X and Y (we have "there exists a First Cause" (one or more)
b) First Cause X and First Cause Y are the causes* of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, none of which second causes are in the material realm.
c) A, B, ...., G are the causes of all things in the material realm. Individually, severally, doesn't matter.

COMMENTS PLEASE ---- Do you find this model consistent with our understanding of "causes"? Do you find this model coherent? PLEASE do not yet attempt to place any interpretation upon what is being modeled.

* In THIS model we will say each necessary but not sufficient. Although we have not yet discussed this, a thing could have more than one cause each of which would be sufficient << example: what is the cause of a ship sinking? torpedo? capsized by a rogue wave? mine? being scuttled? etc. >> In pur example of "fire" we had three causes all needing to be present. HERE we need both X and Y.

[MikeNovack]

How can I convince you that something you insist does not exist has particular properties? (Like caring, or morality, or creating, as you have stipulated)

It cannot be done. But if no means to show you God exists is allowed, whose fault is that?

I am doing no such thing (insisting something does not exist).

HOWEVER --- the truth of the statement "if God exists then God is caring, moral, creating, etc." does NOT depend on the existence of God.

You are confusing what is INSIDE the proof of an "if..then" statement with what is OUTSIDE it. You are asking me to accept OUTSIDE before simply taking as true inside. You don't need to justify ANY of the X's inside proving (X1, X2, .. Xn) => Y. You ASSUME (X1, X2, .. Xn) are true, derive Y, and then replace with (X1, X2, .. Xn) => Y as a true statement.

I suspect you are confused because never had SYMBOLIC logic, just logic with words. "If X then Y" is the same as "X implies Y" and when we get formal, a relation I(X, Y) which has certain properties. For example, transitive I(X, Y) and I(Y, Z) => I(X, Z). Well here we are discussing how to determine if I(X, Y) is true. And I describe a formal process -- open it, write X1, X2, ..Xn as true statements, derive Y, close it with I(X, Y) --- it's an AXIOM that I works that way.

[Immanuel Can]

How can I convince you that something you insist does not exist has particular properties? (Like caring, or morality, or creating, as you have stipulated)

It cannot be done. But if no means to show you God exists is allowed, whose fault is that?

I am doing no such thing (insisting something does not exist).

No, you're stopping short of taking any position, it's true: but you're not assuming God or gods exist, either. So you're treating the question as unresolvable. Hence, we cannot debate any properties, because you've denied us any basis to do so.

How would you prove to me that pink unicorns are inherently loving, for example? How would we resolve that debate?

[Will Bouwman]

...they're just saying, "Believe it, though no facts support it." And why? Because it's the only explanation that gets God(s) out of the universe. And that's what they're completely desperate to achieve, even at the cost of severing their brains.

You're back in your ranting useless wånker mode. Scientists are not desperate to get gods out of the universe. From Thales of Miletus, over two and a half thousand years ago, scientists have been trying to discover what we, as mortals, can understand about the universe. Some have seen their task as understanding a god's creation, others have not. Very few have been desperate to get "God(s) out of the universe". Fred Hoyle springs to mind; he persisted with his steady state hypothesis, in the face of overwhelming evidence, entirely because the big bang was too much like a creation moment for his liking. It is Fred Hoyle who dismissed the expanding "primeval atom" hypothesis of Catholic priest Georges Lemaître as a 'big bang' and the name, intended as a slur, stuck. While the likes of Dawkins and Krauss make a tidy profit from publicly overstating their case, they admit that they cannot prove the non existence of a god, unlike you, they can say out loud 'I don't know', but their role as scientists is to explore nature and the cosmos in their human capacity.

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.

You'll have to point out anywhere where I've done that.

Will I?

In particular, in this argument, you'll have to show how mathematics allows an infinite regress of causes to be possible.

Ah no, you've done it for me.

...it seems intuitively certain that nothing must necessarily be stable,

The phrase, "...nothing must be stable..." is amusingly ambiguous.

What a riot of joyous laughter your life must be.

A "nothing" cannot have qualities.

Okie dokie; so it can't be eternal and therefore the universe necessarily pops into existence in a puff of logic.

[Immanuel Can]

...they're just saying, "Believe it, though no facts support it." And why? Because it's the only explanation that gets God(s) out of the universe. And that's what they're completely desperate to achieve, even at the cost of severing their brains.

Scientists are not desperate to get gods out of the universe.

Nobody said I was talking about scientists. I wasn't. Lots of scientists are Theists.

But lots of people are also desperate to get God out of the universe...and many of them try to invoke "science" in order to claim (Fauci-style) that science backs their play, even when it actually undermines it. For if the universe is a random product, then there's no explanation for how science is even possible. Randomness, by definition, is not subject to laws and regularities; and it doesn't produce intelligent creatures (scientists) capable of decoding its random productions.

So let's cut to the chase:
Well, you're someone who puts a lot of faith in mathematics when it suits your argument.

You'll have to point out anywhere where I've done that.

Will I?

Only if you want somebody to believe it.

A "nothing" cannot have qualities.

Okie dokie; so it can't be eternal and therefore the universe necessarily pops into existence in a puff of logic.

Well, logic has this annoying way of backing the truth, so...

[seeds]

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.

Come on now, Will, you know (or at least you should know) that this is more or less a battle taking place between the “Chance” crowd...

(materialists/materialism)

...as in those who believe that the blind and mindless substance of matter somehow managed to arrange itself into a state of order that defies our understanding,...

...and that of the “Designer” crowd...

(idealists/teleologists/creationism)

...as in those who believe that the unfathomable order of the universe was guided and achieved by something intelligent.

So, regardless of there being...

“...lots of different scientists with lots of different ideas...”

...or, in contrast...

“...lots of different creationists with lots of different ideas...”

...again, you know, good and well, what the overall war is about.

And please give Xenophanes a big gold star from me for pointing out the obvious.

He can tack it up on the same wall next to his plaques that say: "Fire is Hot" and "Pain Hurts".
_______

[Will Bouwman]

A "nothing" cannot have qualities.

Okie dokie; so it can't be eternal and therefore the universe necessarily pops into existence in a puff of logic.

Well, logic has this annoying way of backing the truth, so...

I rest my case.
So:

...if the universe is a random product, then there's no explanation for how science is even possible.

You're only saying that because you have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't follow that a random product has random variables, that's something your halfwit creationist sources forgot to tell you.

[Immanuel Can]

Okie dokie; so it can't be eternal and therefore the universe necessarily pops into existence in a puff of logic.

Well, logic has this annoying way of backing the truth, so...

I rest my case.

Well, without evidence, you didn't make any "case."

...if the universe is a random product, then there's no explanation for how science is even possible.

You're only saying that because you have no idea what you are talking about.

It doesn't follow that a random product has random variables,

You've begged the question, again. Show that randomness "makes products." You've claimed it, above. But you've just assumed it.

[promethean75]

Seeds, you remember when you were on your way to class in your 68 Dodge Charger and when this jam came on the radio you couldn't get Sharleen from fifth period math class out of your head... the two of you lovestruck strangers standing in the dark... and you promised yourself you'd ask her to the high school prom for which you had just purchased a pair of beige corduroy bell-bottoms? Were those the days or what?

[Will Bouwman]

Come on now, Will, you know (or at least you should know) that this is more or less a battle taking place between the “Chance” crowd...

(materialists/materialism)

Hang on a mo, what do you understand materialists to believe the universe is actually made of?

And please give Xenophanes a big gold star from me for pointing out the obvious.

What have you done with the real seeds, you fiend?