I lack belief that the universe is without gods

[Nakosis]

So I have a pencil two inches long. You do not believe this pencil will take up the same physical space if we use a different measurement?

What I'm saying is the unit used to measure space, in this case the inch, is arbitrary. The point being you can define God however you want. If you want to define God as a pencil, you can carry God around in your pocket, Take God out whenever you want to look at him. You define God as invisible, that's going to be more difficult.

Some define God as love. Love exists, so God exists. God as a feeling, God as a supernatural entity. You define God and decide how to measure God's existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Gods, deities, higher beings, really anything worthy of the title.

Meaning what, exactly? This isn't meaningful enough to tell what you mean by "god(s)."

 

[Skwim]

You seem to think I'm claiming gods exist. I'm not,

You said:"I lack belief that the universe is without gods," and a double negative, "lack" plus "without" = a positive. IOW your statement says: "I believe that the universe is with gods."

Occams razor is about the least assumptions, right?

Pretty much. It's the principle that "plurality should not be posited without necessity" or, don't propose more explanatory factors than necessary. Adding god to the equation does nothing to help explain the existence of the universe.

So we have "all events follow cause and effect so there's a first cause" vs "all events follow causer and effect, except the start of the universe because science will one day maybe explain that away."

Not at all sure what you're getting at here, but going along with it anyway, and as I read it, positing an intelligence, a "causer," has not been shown to be necessary.

.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I haven't presented an explanation for how things are. It's implied that if one thinks the universe can be explained without gods, they will either believe on faith or have explanations of how things work without gods.

"universe can be explained "

And I am suggesting the universe can't be explained with or without gods, period, end of story, that is all she wrote.

 

[McBell]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s).

That is simply not true.
Now if you had said you hav enot seen evidence or arguments that convince you....

You seem to think I'm claiming gods exist. I'm not, I simply don't see reason to believe the universe is godless. Occams razor is about the least assumptions, right? So we have "all events follow cause and effect so there's a first cause" vs "all events follow causer and effect, except the start of the universe because science will one day maybe explain that away." Remember, logical deduction/inference is not an assumption..

interesting the number of assumptions you make in that there blurb.
that all events follow cause and effect
that there is a first cause
that your false dichotomy is anything other than a false dichotomy.
That you have a solid grasp on logic.

 

[Curious George]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

This is going to take a lot to unpack. A journey I am willing to take if you really want. Maybe we will both learn something in the process. If so, let us start by asking what is the definition of a god? And what makes an idea worth believing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What burden of proof, I'm not taking a position?

Except you did. In your very first post, you took the position that a universe without gods "just doesn't make sense."

For example, if we took a common argument like the first cause, and showed me how we could bring a universe from nothing without god, that would be a point in favor.

What does a first cause have to do with gods?

And can you even establish the need for a first cause?

Hmm that's interesting. I'm not sure how gods should be defined here, I'll leave it to those with nonbelief to explain what they reject.

You don't need to define a thing to not believe in it. We don't believe in anything we haven't defined.

 

[Blackdog22]

I haven't presented an explanation for how things are. It's implied that if one thinks the universe can be explained without gods, they will either believe on faith or have explanations of how things work without gods.

First you have to answer why you are throwing gods into the mix. Even better, explain to me how the Universe could of come about without the use of magic dust? Can't do it? AHA IT EXISTS!! Will you please stop this nonsense dude. No one knows exactly how the Universe came to be. Quit being dishonest, shifting burdens of proof, and playing dumb on these subjects.

If you still don't get it insert literally any imaginary thing into your little sentence above, examine it closely, and then ask yourself why its ridiculous.

To answer the bolded part NO ONE IS TAKING STANCES OF FAITH ON THESE THINGS BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS WHATS GOING ON ITS ONLY PEOPLE LIKE YOU CLAIMING TO KNOW THINGS YOU CANT EVER POSSIBLY KNOW AND ITS EXHAUSTING SEEING YOU MAKE THE SAME MENTAL MALFUNCTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Here is your answer "We don't know, we aren't claiming to know, we are learning as we go"

Repeat it to yourself as many times as necessary before it sinks in.

 

[Revoltingest]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

I'm willing to admit the universe exists.
But I don't understand it very well, so anything
I'd say about its origins is pure speculation.

Pretty lame argument, eh?

 

[David T]

Facinating responses not a single person picks up on the topic as a reality that gives rise to reality. There is an infinite recursion issue in this discussion.

 

[Milton Platt]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

So you are wanting someone to prove a negative? There is no burden to do so. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe that there are gods in the universe. so far, everything we have examined appears to be natural in origin. Therefore, it is rational to assume that everything else we examine in the future will be of natural origin as well. That could be proved false, given sufficient evidence.......... How do we test for the supernatural?

 

[Curious George]

Facinating responses not a single person picks up on the topic as a reality that gives rise to reality. There is an infinite recursion issue in this discussion.

I think my post completely picked up on the topic. I just noted we would have to lay some groundwork.

 

[1137]

First you have to answer why you are throwing gods into the mix. Even better, explain to me how the Universe could of come about without the use of magic dust? Can't do it? AHA IT EXISTS!! Will you please stop this nonsense dude. No one knows exactly how the Universe came to be. Quit being dishonest, shifting burdens of proof, and playing dumb on these subjects.

If you still don't get it insert literally any imaginary thing into your little sentence above, examine it closely, and then ask yourself why its ridiculous.

To answer the bolded part NO ONE IS TAKING STANCES OF FAITH ON THESE THINGS BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS WHATS GOING ON ITS ONLY PEOPLE LIKE YOU CLAIMING TO KNOW THINGS YOU CANT EVER POSSIBLY KNOW AND ITS EXHAUSTING SEEING YOU MAKE THE SAME MENTAL MALFUNCTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Here is your answer "We don't know, we aren't claiming to know, we are learning as we go"

Repeat it to yourself as many times as necessary before it sinks in.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, I haven't even put forth a position. I simply haven't seen explanations that explain the universe without gods. Not that I necessarily believe in gods either, I'm just unconvinced that there are not gods.

So you are wanting someone to prove a negative? There is no burden to do so. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe that there are gods in the universe. so far, everything we have examined appears to be natural in origin. Therefore, it is rational to assume that everything else we examine in the future will be of natural origin as well. That could be proved false, given sufficient evidence.......... How do we test for the supernatural?

Why are you talking about proving gods?

 

[Milton Platt]

I have no idea what you're talking about here, I haven't even put forth a position. I simply haven't seen explanations that explain the universe without gods. Not that I necessarily believe in gods either, I'm just unconvinced that there are not gods.



Why are you talking about proving gods?

Because I misread your OP..........? Let me try again....
Certainly you have seen theories, because there are several, the Big Bang model being the foremost. Perhaps you mean you have not seen any that convinced you?
Why is a god necessary, or do you not think it is?

 

[siti]

I haven't even put forth a position. I simply haven't seen explanations that explain the universe without gods.

Oh! How interesting!

 

[psychoslice]

God's, faeries, unicorns..........na, I just cannot get myself to believe in such things.

 

[idav]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

Your right, there is no evidence for claims that something does not exist, it isn't very practical. What science has evidence for is a beginning requiring an enourmously mind boggling amount of energy, practically infinite and likely timeless at inception, just appearing out of nowhere, and a refusal to label it god.

 

[Kapalika]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

I think that your problem is that you are stuck in a paradigm that you cannot justify without a belief in the supernatural.

But I would posit that an explanation is not a justification of belief in this case. Just because no one knows why the Universe exists in the way it does does not mean that supernaturalism is the answer. Least of all our intuition should be trusted when it comes to this matter as it's been shown that it's really unreliable when it comes to explaining the physical, same as our perception and memory isn't accurate at recalling or seeing physical events in many types of cases.

What about the Universe necessitates supernatural entities and why is that explanation intellectually favorable over an unknown naturalistic explanation? There are many things we know with upmost confidence that we did not centuries ago. Why should we suppose that the fundamental nature and explanation of the Universe will likewise hide in the god of the gaps?

Gods, deities, higher beings, really anything worthy of the title.

That doesn't really define what those things are then. "Higher" in what sense? How do we determine was is worthy of a title and does that mean that supernaturalism is not a required prerequisite? And if it's not how can we talk about the Universe existing without them, since I think it is quite easy for things to exist without titled concepts that humans, emergent only a few million years ago, conjured up.

Are you saying that "inches" dont describe any real amount of space?

I think their point was that inches by itself is a concept and that they don't describe any objective quality of space. Inches are based on a standard and there isn't any set "true inch". My search engine skills are a little lacking but I do recall that there is a specific object/ruler that the US government keeps at a constant temperature as the standard for what an inch is. Ultimately an inch is arbitrary which is why it isn't objective. It doesn't "exist" it's just a quality we made up for the sake of convenience. It's a mental tool. Gods could be considered real/unreal in the same way. That's the position I take but the difference is I'm willing to recognize that gods have nothing to do with the casual nature of the physical aspect of the universe and more to do with our minds.

Some of the arguments and evidence I've seen.

Again you avoid giving anyone a real explanation and instead shift the burden of proof onto someone else. Belief needs to be justified, not disbelief.

 

[Blackdog22]

I have no idea what you're talking about here, I haven't even put forth a position. I simply haven't seen explanations that explain the universe without gods. Not that I necessarily believe in gods either, I'm just unconvinced that there are not gods.

Welcome to the club. No one knows for a fact that gods do not exist. We could insert any number of things that we have no evidence for in place of gods and also say we can't say for a fact they don't exist. The question is why even ask such question that seem completely insane and irrelevant to the world we live in?

Secondly, you say you aren't putting forth a position, say you don't necessarily believe in gods, but then say you cant find an explanation for a Universe without a god. That definitely seems like your stance is that the Universe must exist with gods and you can't find a reason to counteract this. It makes no sense, you are beating around the bush because you seem upset with how the burden of proof works so you are attempting to beat an atheist at his own game.

Im personally haven't heard anyone claim absolute knowledge about how the Universe came about from anyone besides Christians and the religious. Everyone else is just waiting to see what we find out as our knowledge base increases.

 

[LuisDantas]

Gods, deities, higher beings, really anything worthy of the title.

Do you think there is anyone but you to decide that there is a point in calling anyone or anything by any of those names?