My Problem With the "God Did It" Explanation for the Existence of the Universe

[Corkscrew]

A frog can't explain to a tadpole what dry means (even if they could talk of course), but dry exists nonetheless.

I’m not quite sure what your point is here. Are you saying that a state of “Nothing” can exist?

 

[challupa]

I’m not quite sure what your point is here. Are you saying that a state of “Nothing” can exist?

I've always heard it's called the Zero Point Field. But I've also heard that it is far from nothing, rather, it contains everything? Not sure how that works though.

 

[Corkscrew]

I've always heard it's called the Zero Point Field. But I've also heard that it is far from nothing, rather, it contains everything? Not sure how that works though.

I’m not even sure why I bought it up. I guess, with all this talk about whether or not a creator exists, it would be an interesting discussion of whether or not nothing at all is capable of existing…Wow, does that make sense? :areyoucra

 

[challupa]

I’m not even sure why I bought it up. I guess, with all this talk about whether or not a creator exists, it would be an interesting discussion of whether or not nothing at all is capable of existing…Wow, does that make sense? :areyoucra

Well it is the "nothing" that gives "something" definition. The nothing between the walls is a room. So it's important too.

 

[Thief]

Only if you define the cause only in terms of the effect. "The universe is" only gets you as far as "the cause of the universe did it", not to "God did it". It would take quite a bit more on your part to establish that God is the cause of the universe.

In your rebuttal you simply replaced one noun with another.
I can do the same.
I now call my god...."Cause".

 

[McBell]

In your rebuttal you simply replaced one noun with another.
I can do the same.
I now call my god...."Cause".

And you still have the same problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In your rebuttal you simply replaced one noun with another.

Not quite.

I can do the same.
I now call my god...."Cause".

What makes "cause" a god?

 

[logician]

I’m not even sure why I bought it up. I guess, with all this talk about whether or not a creator exists, it would be an interesting discussion of whether or not nothing at all is capable of existing…Wow, does that make sense? :areyoucra

Actually, this question is MUCH more interesting than the question of whether a god does or does not exist. I tend to think "something" (matter and energy, not god) has existed forever.

 

[Thief]

Not quite.


What makes "cause" a god?

Now we are playing word games.

 

[McBell]

Now we are playing word games.

I completely agree.

But I do find it rather comical that you are complaining about the word game YOU started.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now we are playing word games.

I think you are, which is my point.

You give us an argument, which if it worked, would only get you to "a cause"... IOW a word that implies very little. Then, without missing a beat or giving us any reason, you pull a bait-and-switch and replace "a cause" with "God", a word that implies all sorts of things, like intelligence, consciousness, a desire for human worship and (depending on your theological bent) also things like omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence, as well as the existence of human souls, an afterlife, the truth of divine revelation, and the correctness of a specific code of behaviour for people.

That's quite the word game.

 

[Thief]

I think you are, which is my point.

You give us an argument, which if it worked, would only get you to "a cause"... IOW a word that implies very little. Then, without missing a beat or giving us any reason, you pull a bait-and-switch and replace "a cause" with "God", a word that implies all sorts of things, like intelligence, consciousness, a desire for human worship and (depending on your theological bent) also things like omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence, as well as the existence of human souls, an afterlife, the truth of divine revelation, and the correctness of a specific code of behaviour for people.

That's quite the word game.

So is there a rule ...the Cause of the universe cannot have a mind?
Spiritual life and the universe cannot co-exist?

 

[johnhanks]

So is there a rule ...the Cause of the universe cannot have a mind?

No; only that if all you have demonstrated is a 'cause', then unless you can demonstrate that there cannot be cause without mind, to endow it with mind is an unjustified extrapolation.

 

[Thief]

No; only that if all you have demonstrated is a 'cause', then unless you can demonstrate that there cannot be cause without mind, to endow it with mind is an unjustified extrapolation.

So...which do you believe to be first?
Material substance...or spirit?

Can material substance give 'birth' to spirit?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So is there a rule ...the Cause of the universe cannot have a mind?

No, the rule is that if you want to claim that the cause of the universe has a mind, then you have to argue this on its own merits.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So is there a rule ...the Cause of the universe cannot have a mind?
Spiritual life and the universe cannot co-exist?

IF (big if) there is a cause, godlike attributes are not shown to be necessary.

So...which do you believe to be first?
Material substance...or spirit?

Can material substance give 'birth' to spirit?

"Spirit" is not shown through the available evidence to exist, nor is spirit shown to be necessary for material to exist.
What is necessary for material to exist is energy. Energy can be measured, spirit is not energy as spirit has never been measured.

 

[Thief]

IF (big if) there is a cause, godlike attributes are not shown to be necessary.



"Spirit" is not shown through the available evidence to exist, nor is spirit shown to be necessary for material to exist.
What is necessary for material to exist is energy. Energy can be measured, spirit is not energy as spirit has never been measured.

So....you are not spiritual in any sense of the word?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So....you are not spiritual in any sense of the word?

My personal spirituality is irrelevant to the scientific facts.
To clarify,
Yes, I "believe" in a non-personal deity that existed or exists beyond the Singularity.
Yes, I "hope" for a continuation of consciousness beyond this life.
No, I have no evidence for these "beliefs", nor would I ever attempt to muddy scientific facts with my personal beliefs.

 

[Thief]

My personal spirituality is irrelevant to the scientific facts.
To clarify,
Yes, I "believe" in a non-personal deity that existed or exists beyond the Singularity.
Yes, I "hope" for a continuation of consciousness beyond this life.
No, I have no evidence for these "beliefs", nor would I ever attempt to muddy scientific facts with my personal beliefs.

You still have choices to make.
Good luck.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You still have choices to make.
Good luck.

Thanks, but as you can see, I have made my choices. And will continue to base what I "know" on verifiable evidence.