Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[PruePhillip]

A lot of people are delusional, even kind, sincere, well-intentioned people.

"Had there been a lunatic asylum in the suburbs of Jerusalem, Jesus Christ would infallibly have been shut up in it at the outset of his public career. The interview with Satan on a pinnacle of the temple would alone have damned him, and everything that happened after could but have confirmed the diagnosis. The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum." -- Havelock Ellis.

Except that he was this amazing healer, and his preaching was like nothing anyone
had heard before. Read the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5,6 and 7 and you can just
feel the power of his message, 2,000 after he spoke it. This is why people, good people,
were willing to lay down their lives for this man.

 

[WalterTrull]

If you can't believe this world came from nothing, then why can you believe a god came from nothing?

Uhmm...
I think the "time" concept is what obfuscates this rationale.
I like to think "eternal" kind of "always was" instead.
Then "came from" is moot

 

[Polymath257]

Well, we CAN ask 'who or what created the universe' because the universe is HERE.
Physicists say what was BEFORE is a nonsensical question - that's why I say asking
'who created God' is itself nonsensical.

So they are BOTH nonsensical questions. But we know the universe is here. And we don't know the same about any deities. So it is reasonable to assume that it is the universe that was not caused.

 

[Polymath257]

Uhmm...
I think the "time" concept is what obfuscates this rationale.
I like to think "eternal" kind of "always was" instead.
Then "came from" is moot

And why could this not apply to the universe?

 

[WalterTrull]

And why could this not apply to the universe?

I think it does. Although, I also think of the universe "cosmos" as more of a mental eternity. When going there, God and universe kind of mean the same thing to me. Not the prevailing sentiment I'd guess.

 

[Polymath257]

I think it does. Although, I also think of the universe "cosmos" as more of a mental eternity. When going there, God and universe kind of mean the same thing to me. Not the prevailing sentiment I'd guess.

So more pantheist or panentheist?

 

[WalterTrull]

Oh, I suppose pantheism is closer, but the label doesn't quite fit. My recollection is that most pantheists believe in a physical and discrete universe. I could be wrong there. (Hard to believe, that, I know)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, is the world physical or one other such one category answer. Or is the world more complex than that and you can't reduce to personal down to the impersonal, though the impersonal gives "rise" to the personal?

I like pie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, you admit yourself. That is a first person subjective process.

No. It's taking things to their logical conclusion.

If A is bigger then B and B is bigger then C, you can infer that A is bigger then C even when you might not be able to directly compare them.

It has nothing to do with "subjectivity" and everything with taking things to their logical conclusion.

If, then, else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, we CAN ask 'who or what created the universe' because the universe is HERE.

"who" would be a loaded question.

Physicists say what was BEFORE is a nonsensical question

No. They say that it might be a nonsensical question and if current physics, like relativity, are accurate, then it probably is. But we also know that we miss stuff in physics, because classical physics isn't really compatible with quantum physics. There is no grand theory yet that can unify these worlds.

We would need such a theory to see if the "might" can be expressed with more certainty.

However currently, considering our current knowledge, it makes no sense to talk about "before" the universe, because all of physics as we know it currently breaks down at T = 0.

It's like talking about north of the north pole.

- that's why I say asking
'who created God' is itself nonsensical.

So is "who created himlfdhiebtk".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. It's taking things to their logical conclusion.

If A is bigger then B and B is bigger then C, you can infer that A is bigger then C even when you might not be able to directly compare them.

It has nothing to do with "subjectivity" and everything with taking things to their logical conclusion.

If, then, else.

Well, here is your problem. You are not using science, you are doing philosophy:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

So yes, if you subjectively accept this strongly philosophical statement, then it follows. I due accept it as philosophy, but not science as you want it to be.
The problem with your limited analogy is that there is no observation of "A is bigger then C". The singularity and the early time period of the MODEL of the Big Bang are that. A model! It only exists as a model in the brains of humans and haven't been tied to the map/territory.
You really have to learn when something is theoretical and not theoretical. Yes, there are 2 different meanings of that even in science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"who" would be a loaded question.



No. They say that it might be a nonsensical question and if current physics, like relativity, are accurate, then it probably is. But we also know that we miss stuff in physics, because classical physics isn't really compatible with quantum physics. There is no grand theory yet that can unify these worlds.

We would need such a theory to see if the "might" can be expressed with more certainty.

However currently, considering our current knowledge, it makes no sense to talk about "before" the universe, because all of physics as we know it currently breaks down at T = 0.

It's like talking about north of the north pole.



So is "who created himlfdhiebtk".

When T = 0 hasn't been observed, so it is not in reality as an actual observation. Reality as: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. T = 0 only exists if we can actually observe it just like a thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When T = 0 hasn't been observed, so it is not in reality as an actual observation.

That's like responding to the explanatory model of evolutionary biology with "were you there?" like Ken Ham always does. Astonishingly irrational as a response.

Reality as: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. T = 0 only exists if we can actually observe it just like a thing.

And Pompeï was only burried by a volcano if we can go back in time and watch it be burried by a volcano.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's like responding to the explanatory model of evolutionary biology with "were you there?" like Ken Ham always does. Astonishingly irrational as a response.




And Pompeï was only burried by a volcano if we can go back in time and watch it be burried by a volcano.

No, because biology and volcanos can be observed now. T = 0 can't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, here is your problem. You are not using science, you are doing philosophy:

Call it what you will.
It doesn't change the facts.

The problem with your limited analogy is that there is no observation of "A is bigger then C". The singularity and the early time period of the MODEL of the Big Bang are that. A model!

Very well tested models, at that.

If A > B is very well tested and B > C is very well tested, then one can reasonably infer that A > C without directly testing it.

It only exists as a model in the brains of humans

And as equations on paper that makes predictions which can be tested against observable reality.
You seem to have a habit of leaving those parts out.

and haven't been tied to the map/territory.

The model makes loads of predictions and you tie the model to reality by testing the predictions.
Like the microwave background.

You really have to learn when something is theoretical and not theoretical. Yes, there are 2 different meanings of that even in science.

You really have to learn how explanatory models in science aren't pulled out of thin air and then accepted without scrutiny.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, because biology and volcanos can be observed now. T = 0 can't.

Can you observe the 10th of december in the year 258?

Current physics posits space and time as properties of the universe.
T = 0 marks the start of the universe.
You might as well call it S = 0, where S is space.

And if time, like space, is a property of the universe, it follows that both don't exist if the universe doesn't exist.


You can argue that point till you are blue in the face, it won't change anything.

The fact is that if A is a property of B, it follows that A doesn't exist if B doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If A > B is very well tested and B > C is very well tested, then one can reasonably infer that A > C without directly testing it.

...

Yeah, thinking is exactly the same as observation. Well, no, not really.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you observe the 10th of december in the year 258?

No, but it is not T = 0. T = 0 can't be observed in principle, because in principle for science as testing requires humans and they don't exist at T = 0.

You are conflating in time with no time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, thinking is exactly the same as observation. Well, no, not really.

You're the one who keeps yapping about observation.
Those are your criteria, not mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're the one who keeps yapping about observation.
Those are your criteria, not mine.

So science doesn't require observation directly or through instruments.