God can't explain anything and there's no rational way to demonstrate otherwise

[`mud]

Is `God` trying to explain what ?
Explaining Life and it's purpose ?
The sustanence needed to exist ?
The stuff that creates other Stuff ?
Is `God` creating that other stuff ?
How does `God` explain this ?
Life becomes Stuff and nothing else.
No explanation needed at all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't accept your premise that this happened, and how are those explanations?

Why don't you accept my premise? And God to you will be the explanations you (hopefully) seek.

What evidence would you need to prove that God exists?

 

[leroy]

I don't see that as logically necessary at all. The universe may be infinite, or it may be part of an infinite and eternal multiverse, and even if that wasn't the case I don't see why I'd be justified in going to the supernatural. I would just say I didn't know.

At this point I am not arguing that a cause of the universe is logically necessary, (obviously I would have to provide evidence) all I am saying is that if the universe (ie all the natural world) had a cause then by definition the cause would have to be supernatural.

At this point do you disagree with something?

And what consists of the physical/natural world. Does the multiverse also fit into that category?

Yes, with universe I mean all the natural world, this would include parallel worlds, strings, the Matrinx, or any other natural stuff that might exist. (time and space would also be part of the universe,)

But how is GOd an explanation at all? Asserting that God is the cause of fine tuning isn't an explanation, and we don't go with a supposed God explanation just because we lack a decent naturalistic explanation. That's an argument from ignorance.

yes I would say that if God happens to be a better explanation that any other known naturalistic explanation, it would be rational to conclude that God is the cause for the fine tuning of the universe.

If further evidence shows that there is a better explanation than God, then “God” must be rejected as an explanation.

I honestly don’t see what do you find so controversial about this, to me it seems that the God hypothesis must be rejected by default

But I don't accept that GOd can be an explanation of anything.

How do you justify that assertion?

 

[leroy]

But the scientific investigation of gravity revealed what it was and thus removed the mystery. The investigation showed us that gravity was a force that brought objects together according to certain physical laws. Once that determination was made, it lost the status of mystery.That's when we were rationally justified in believing in gravity. At that point gravity was understood and its explanatory power could be used to explain other phenomena or causes. With God you can't do anything like that.



I never said that we need to know the origins of something before we have an explanation. If we can describe what it is and how it works, then it can become an explanation. A car can be explained in terms of combustion in a piston without knowing where the car was created.

That's a meaningless assertion. You haven't explained a thing. We explain things in terms of other things we understand and by explaining a mystery by appealing to another mystery,

My point is that Newton appealed to a deeper mystery when he proposed that Gravity is the cause for Apples falling from trees.

Even to date nobody knows what Gravity is, nor where did it come from.


But nobody would drop Newton´s equations just because they appeal to a deeper mystery

My point is that an explanation should not be dropped, just because they appeal to a deeper mystery…..agree?

 

[leroy]

What evidence would you need to prove that God exists?

I find it perplexing that most atheists fail to provide a clear and direct answer to that question.

Some atheists openly admit that no evidence will ever convince them, others provide vague and meaningless answers

 

[robocop (actually)]

God is to be explained? How do you explain God? Most theists argue that there is no explanation behind God.



A false dilemma. There are models of an eternal multiverse. Also the idea of nothing is problematic. For example, if you have no laws of physics or laws of logic, then anything goes and anything can happen, including universes. Its likely that nothing is impossible and is a fundamentally contradictory conceot.

Alright. Never mind.

 

[robocop (actually)]

God is to be explained? How do you explain God? Most theists argue that there is no explanation behind God.



A false dilemma. There are models of an eternal multiverse. Also the idea of nothing is problematic. For example, if you have no laws of physics or laws of logic, then anything goes and anything can happen, including universes. Its likely that nothing is impossible and is a fundamentally contradictory conceot.

The concept is deep. There are many possibilities for God and it is difficult to nail them all down. Just because someone is a theist doesn't mean they have tried. They may just accept it because it makes sense to them.

Why can't an eternal multiverse have God at the helm? Let's say for argument's sake there was always something. Can't it be visualized with or without God?

You choose whether to believe in God, but let's not be hasty and say we've nailed the coffin on God.

 

[serp777]

The concept is deep. There are many possibilities for God and it is difficult to nail them all down. Just because someone is a theist doesn't mean they have tried. They may just accept it because it makes sense to them.

Why can't an eternal multiverse have God at the helm? Let's say for argument's sake there was always something. Can't it be visualized with or without God?

You choose whether to believe in God, but let's not be hasty and say we've nailed the coffin on God.

No one is saying God is nailed to a coffin and it would be logically incoherent to say God is at the helm of an eternal multiverse because then they both exist eternally. God couldn't have create or cause the eternal multiverse at that point, so God is a superfluous addition. It could be visualized with God, but then God wouldn't explain or be important for anything. The multiverse could exist without God just fine.

 

[serp777]

My point is that Newton appealed to a deeper mystery when he proposed that Gravity is the cause for Apples falling from trees.

Even to date nobody knows what Gravity is, nor where did it come from.


But nobody would drop Newton´s equations just because they appeal to a deeper mystery

My point is that an explanation should not be dropped, just because they appeal to a deeper mystery…..agree?

How did he appeal to a deeper mystery when he proposed gravity? he appealed to a set of equations and mechanisms for how gravity works which then explained many phenomena. Newton's equations didn't appeal to a deeper mystery, they just appealed to math. Gravity as an explanation can be appropriately labeled an explanation at that point because gravity in that context is referring to the set of equations and mechanisms that are understandable and usable. The deeper mystery was completely absent and irrelevant from the explanation. THe deeper mystery could also not be considered an explanation in any sense of the word. So even if what you're saying is true, then God is still always the deeper mystery and can therefore never be an explanation.

But I don't see how any explanation can appeal to a deeper mystery since the only point of appealing to something is if it can help the explanation explain more. A deeper mystery doesn't add anything and in fact might damage the explanation. So although I would agree that appealing to a deeper mystery doesn't make an explanation wrong or invalid, I don't agree with your premise that explanations appeal to deeper mysteries. I'd like an example of an explanation that appeals to a deeper mystery and is enhanced or changed in any way by it. And the reason again is because you could just say that the deeper mystery of gravity is magic, and therefore you're getting no where.

 

[serp777]

At this point I am not arguing that a cause of the universe is logically necessary, (obviously I would have to provide evidence) all I am saying is that if the universe (ie all the natural world) had a cause then by definition the cause would have to be supernatural.

At this point do you disagree with something?



Yes, with universe I mean all the natural world, this would include parallel worlds, strings, the Matrinx, or any other natural stuff that might exist. (time and space would also be part of the universe,)





yes I would say that if God happens to be a better explanation that any other known naturalistic explanation, it would be rational to conclude that God is the cause for the fine tuning of the universe.

If further evidence shows that there is a better explanation than God, then “God” must be rejected as an explanation.

I honestly don’t see what do you find so controversial about this, to me it seems that the God hypothesis must be rejected by default







How do you justify that assertion?

At this point I am not arguing that a cause of the universe is logically necessary, (obviously I would have to provide evidence) all I am saying is that if the universe (ie all the natural world) had a cause then by definition the cause would have to be supernatural.

At this point do you disagree with something?

I disagree the cause necesserily has to be supernatural. Because if the universe is eternal or time started at some point, then the idea of a cause makes no sense because causality requires space and time by any definition. There's too much I don't know about the universe to say that the cause would be supernatural. I also don't know what it means for the supernatural to cause something. I would simply say I don't know that the cause would have to be supernatural. And furthermore if there was ever nothing, no laws of physics, no laws of logic, no space, no time, etc. Then that would mean, by definition, that anything goes including randomly creating pockets of space where there are laws of physics and universes. So I think its not contradictory to say the universe could "emerge: out of nothing.

yes I would say that if God happens to be a better explanation that any other known naturalistic explanation, it would be rational to conclude that God is the cause for the fine tuning of the universe.

But what makes God an explanation at all? I mean could magic be an explanation, or something other panacea? We explain things in terms of other things we understanding so saying that God serves as an explanation really doesn't make any sense. I'd like to see an example of God explaining the fine tuning. How does God explain fine tuning? Asserting that he is the cause is not an explanation consequentially. I also don't agree that we go with the supposed God explanation just because

How do you justify that assertion?

God is the ultimate mystery supposedly and we can only explain things in terms of other things we understand. God can't be an explanation for the same reason magic isn't an explanation for anything. An explanation needs to actually explain something and illuminate it, so when you say God caused something, that isn't an explanation because we don't have sufficient information about God for it to mean anything. If I were to say that God makes me breathe and compare it to the expansion of tissue and muscles in my lungs makes me breathe, the difference is that the latter is based on real, naturalistic properties and mechanisms I already understand and know about whereas God gives me no more information or understanding.

Also I don't really have to justify an assertion about what I do or don't accept. My claim that I don't accept something is the justification. The better question would be why I don't accept the claim that God serves as an explanation of something. So my position is that I've never seen God serve as an explanation and I don't see how he could, but I'm not claiming that its impossible or that i know every explanation. I can be disproven by giving me one example, so the burden of proof is on you to provide an explanation based on God if you assert that God can be an explanation.

 

[leroy]

But I don't see how any explanation can appeal to a deeper mystery since the only point of appealing to something is if it can help the explanation explain more. A deeper mystery doesn't add anything and in fact might damage the explanation.

Oooo ok, I thought that you meant something different with deeper mystery. With “deeper mystery” I meant that a new question was opened after Newton discovered the laws of gravity.

So it would help if you elaborate a little bit and explain what do you mean by “deeper mystery”

 

[`mud]

I would like to explain Serps explanation of an explanation of what he meant in that explanation of what explanations are meant to explain,
But I can't !

 

[Willamena]

Adequate for what? A science textbook?

How about adequate for dealing with what oppresses you or inspires you? Now I would be the last person to say that a science textbook couldn't inspire someone (I've read one or two for recreational purposes), and certainly science is an essential place to start...but when dealing with the more subjective aspects of one's experience of life, isn't the cure for our ills often made in the form of an appeal to "believe"? If not in a mythical figure then at least in some idea or principle as it applies to us personally?

And does not art help to inspire us in this?

Adequate for those people not particularly skilled at make-belief.

Does lying to oneself actually work?

 

[leroy]

Also I don't really have to justify an assertion about what I do or don't accept. My claim that I don't accept something is the justification. The better question would be why I don't accept the claim that God serves as an explanation of something. So my position is that I've never seen God serve as an explanation and I don't see how he could, but I'm not claiming that its impossible or that i know every explanation. I can be disproven by giving me one example, so the burden of proof is on you to provide an explanation based on God if you assert that God can be an explanation.

Well I already answered:

1 If something is logically necessarily for an explanation, then that something can be used as an explanation. ….

2 if something is the best explanation available for a given phenomena, then this “something” can be used as an explanation .

So where is your disagreement?

At this point I am not claiming that I succeeded in proving that God is logically necesairly nor the best explanation, all I am saying is that there are at least hypothetical scenarios where God would be the best explanation.

Consider this extreme example, pretend that someone dies in front t of your own eyes, you saw him died, many other witnesses also saw him died, cameras recorded the event and clearly recorded the death of this person, forensic scientists looked at the body and confirmed that he was dead. Then after a few days this person knocks your door and tells you “hi, guess what I resurrected, I died, went to heaven talked to God and he told me I will resurrect because I have some purpose on earth. Many eyewitnesses and cameras record this event, DNA tests confirm that the guy who died and the guy who resurrected are the same guy. Etc etc (all the tests that you can imagine confirm that he was dead and then he was alive.

Would you conclude that a miracle took place and that God exist? ……..(assuming that your answer would be yes)………..My point is that at least there are some hypothetical scenarios that would make the existence of God obvious.

 

[Etritonakin]

People often try to give God as an explanation of things like morality, the beginning of the universe, etc. But i don't see how God explains anything or could possibly be an explanation. Its equivalent to "magic" or "pixies" did it. Furthermore there's no reasonable way to show that God is an explanation for anything. Matt DIllahunty made the great point that using God as an explanation is just explaining a mystery by appealing to another, greater mystery. If I say that dark matters exists because of super stuff, or some other undefined label, then you haven't explained a thing. Using God as an explanation is just like using super stuff as an explanation. if you did try to use that as an explanation, then there's no way to prove it because you can't demonstrate a causal link between something as ambiguous as God did it to some unexplained effect.

The God of the bible does not actually claim responsibility for his own existence -or for the existence of that from which he creates (rather, it is suggested that his the mind of everything, and everything his body/changeable garment/changeable environment. In other words, his is that is, that which was and will be).

Likewise, science has no explanation for why things exist in the first place -but only learns how they specifically became one thing from another.

In either case.... As something cannot logically come from absolute nothing... At some point, everything which became everything else just was -and "always" has been.

From the perspective of general scientific knowledge thus far, it is believed that things such as self-awareness, identity, creativity, etc., naturally develop/evolve. It is also known that certain things are impossible without self-awareness, identity, creativity, etc. -that they are required to allow for and produce things not otherwise possible.

There is no reason to believe this is not the case on an all-inclusive scale. In other words, "everything" must first have become capable of knowingly producing that which was previously impossible.That which now exists must always have been generally possible, but all things must be preceded by that which makes them specifically possible.

We do not see the big picture, so it seems thus far that God is not necessary -because processes are essentially automated -but it is the nature of that which is produced which would indicate self-awareness, forethought, intent, purpose, intelligence, etc., etc., rather than the process -and extremely complex automated processes should certainly not be assumed to be indication of a lack of such.

 

[`mud]

I must be having a stroke !

 

[sealchan]

Adequate for those people not particularly skilled at make-belief.

Does lying to oneself actually work?

You've never "got lost" in a novel or been overwhelmed by a movie? Did you intentionally allow yourself to potentially experience that?

 

[Willamena]

You've never "got lost" in a novel or been overwhelmed by a movie? Did you intentionally allow yourself to potentially experience that?

I have "got lost" in a novel and a movie and a day-dream, but eventually they ended.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

From at least the biblical perspective, it appears God is a mystery because He is terrified we, supposedly made in His image, have His powers as well. He is actually threatened by two kids eating a fruit and later people building a multi-story building. If He is so completely out of our league, why does that keep Him up at night? It sounds to me like God was once human and got superpowers and then tried to claim a status that was ... misleading. It makes no sense for a completely unrelated being to be terrified we could become like Him. I do not lie awake at night thinking about how some random minnows in a river are going to become full blown US citizens or whatever. The dogs aren't going to tk mah jb.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No one is saying God is nailed to a coffin and it would be logically incoherent to say God is at the helm of an eternal multiverse because then they both exist eternally. God couldn't have create or cause the eternal multiverse at that point, so God is a superfluous addition. It could be visualized with God, but then God wouldn't explain or be important for anything. The multiverse could exist without God just fine.

My point is simply that when you throw God into the equation many other equations you thought go out the window. Plus it seems helpful. There are still unanswered questions that you have to admit God is one answer to.