Food for thought for Christians

[Stranger]

Well if you can deflect attention from my point Hillside then I guess I have to expect you to be up for it.

You made a point? Must have missed that.

If we live in a virtual universe within a multiverse then whatever creates us fulfils the Job description of God as proposed i'm afraid.

Right, so you might be worshipping a minor technician in some third-rate virtual universe making outfit - Universes'R'Us, perhaps? Before, you were talking about one of the Christian gods - you know, the one the you experienced, all the omnis, has some connection to the Jesus character in the bible and all that...

Also you have missed the point that the multiverse may have no way of being proved or disproved and is thus special pleading on the part of people like Sean Carroll for whom one universe remains a ''problem'' for some reason....Oh the fine tuning ''problem'' apparently.

Finally if there are virtual universes, what is to stop them all being virtual?

Some questions there Hillside which doubtless you feel are beneath you being the biggest swinging wotsit on the forum and that.

Well if you can deflect attention...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

See Brian Greenes Nine types simulated multiverse.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Well ... bravo.

Aw shucks 

Remarkable innit the way he went on immediately to demonstrate both stupidity/dishonesty and unpleasantness.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah, the sound of scraping barrels.

Nope.

So come on then who are all the others in the category of 'people like 'Sean Carroll'.

The reality is that this is just a disingenuous trick aimed at trying to fool the reader into thinking that the attribute or opinion espoused by the particular person in the 'people like ...' statement is representative of a whole swathe of people all having the same opinion, when usually what is being described are views attributable to one person only.

So, come on, lets have you list of all the other in your 'people like 'Sean Carroll' group.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope.

So come on then who are all the others in the category of 'people like 'Sean Carroll'.

Did I say scraping the Barrels?
I meant scraping the Carrolls.

Theres a part chapter in the ''God Delusion'' about how you get over the problem of fine tuning for starters.

[Shaker]

Let me stop you there Blue Hotel. I have said that in our debates I cannot say any more than If God exists he would be true for all of us since God is present in philosophy, moral philosophy and cosmogony.

This is of course arrant arse-gravy - no god is present in these things until and unless somebody decides to crowbar a god into them in an ad hoc manner, typically as a gap-filling exercise since they have a problem with saying "I don't know - need more data" and have to inject a god into the proceedings as pseudo-explanatory Polyfilla.

Philosophy, moral philosophy and cosmogony all do just fine without adding the fudge factor of a deity. It adds nothing and explains nothing. An idly spinning wheel, as I think Wittgenstein called such ploys - something that exists gratuitously and serves no purpose whatever.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is of course arrant arse-gravy - no god is present in these things until and unless somebody decides to crowbar a god into them in an ad hoc manner, typically as a gap-filling exercise since they have a problem with saying "I don't know - need more data" and have to inject a god into the proceedings as pseudo-explanatory Polyfilla.

Philosophy, moral philosophy and cosmogony all do just fine without adding the fudge factor of a deity. It adds nothing and explains nothing.

God is in those things whether you like it or not.

Shakers law= I like the sound of this, so it'll do.
The fudge factor is that which says ''I don't know but it isn't God''.
That makes you the finger of fudge covered in chocolate because it is arrant arse pull.

Have a nice day.

[Shaker]

God is in those things whether you like it or not.

Nope. Exactly as I said, only and unless you inject a god into those things for your own reasons.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. Exactly as I said, only and unless you inject a god into those things for your own reasons.

You are trying to claim philosophy, moral philosophy, and cosmogony for naturalism......it don't work but might provide your ilk with a bit of illicit wankfodder for a bit I suppose...........

[Stranger]

Theres a part chapter in the ''God Delusion'' about how you get over the problem of fine tuning for starters.

And....?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And....?

Why should fine tuning be a scientific ''problem'' to be ''got over''

[Shaker]

You are trying to claim philosophy, moral philosophy, and cosmogony for naturalism......it don't work but might provide your ilk with a bit of illicit wankfodder for a bit I suppose...........

I'm saying that the most minimal, conservative, Occam's Razor-obeying default setting applies - go beyond that and start injecting gods into the process and that's when we start asking all those difficult questions that you dodge even faster than you reckon you used to dodge God.

[Stranger]

Why should fine tuning be a scientific ''problem'' to be ''got over''

Why shouldn't there be something we don't know?

Doesn't make your favourite 'just so' story 'explanation' any more believable. Maybe the Great Green Arkleseizure had fine-tuned snot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm saying that the most minimal, conservative, Occam's Razor-obeying default setting applies - go beyond that and start injecting gods into the process and that's when we start asking all those difficult questions that you dodge even faster than you reckon you used to dodge God.

Unfortunately though the universe which seems to have a beginning of the known universal laws would need two unnatural things to be in the position you give it.
1. To be self created 2.To have existed for ever 3. To be part of an infinite regression the ultimate violation of Occam's razor.

[Stranger]

Unfortunately though the universe which seems to have a beginning of the known universal laws would need two unnatural things to be in the position you give it.
1. To be self created 2.To have existed for ever 3. To be part of an infinite regression the ultimate violation of Occam's razor.

Just like any god, then...

Oh, but wait! Some of them gods are supposed to be 'outside' time.

Ah, but! Just as an example, if we take the whole of space-time, then it would exist as just a four dimensional object, not itself subject to any time - exactly as General Relativity suggests.

In any event, gods have no less problems than the universe; they are a redundant non-explanation.

Or perhaps it was the Great Green Arkleseizure.... Bless you!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just like any god, then...

Oh, but wait! Some of them gods are supposed to be 'outside' time.

Ah, but! Just as an example, if we take the whole of space-time, then it would exist as just a four dimensional object, not itself subject to any time - exactly as General Relativity suggests.

In any event, gods have no less problems than the universe; they are a redundant non-explanation.

Or perhaps it was the Great Green Arkleseizure.... Bless you!

unfortunately the laws of physics seem to break down the closer we get to the big bang. That really puts a stopper on trying to explain the existence of the universe by the things inside it.....which in turn makes naturalism espoused more and more arbitrarily doctrinaire.

Your conception of God is cartoon caricature.

[ProfessorDavey]

Did I say scraping the Barrels?
I meant scraping the Carrolls.

Theres a part chapter in the ''God Delusion'' about how you get over the problem of fine tuning for starters.

So your answer to 'people like Sean Carroll' is Dawkins and I guess your answer to 'people like Richard Dawkins' is Carroll.

Just astonishing - the level of guff really is remarkable.

[Stranger]

unfortunately the laws of physics seem to break down the closer we get to the big bang. That really puts a stopper on trying to explain the existence of the universe by the things inside it.....which in turn makes naturalism espoused more and more arbitrarily doctrinaire.

The tested theories we have break down - so we have something we don't know.

As I said before, that doesn't make any old 'just so' story of magic gods any more believable.

Your conception of God is cartoon caricature.

So, which part of what I said was incorrect - according to your non-caricature conception?

In the post I only said that some gods (concepts of god) are supposed to exist outside of time - something I've been told by several theists.

You have already stated that you think god created the universe. Your clear implication was that it explained what science can't.

So, it can only be the 'outside time' bit you think a caricature - you'd better tell your fellow theists...

[jeremyp]

unfortunately the laws of physics seem to break down the closer we get to the big bang.

Wrong. It's not the laws of physics that break down but our current best estimate of what they are.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You made a point? Must have missed that.

Right, so you might be worshipping a minor technician in some third-rate virtual universe making outfit - Universes'R'Us, perhaps? Before, you were talking about one of the Christian gods - you know, the one the you experienced, all the omnis, has some connection to the Jesus character in the bible and all that...

Well if you can deflect attention...

That if I may say is a good point and there are of course people like yourself who think we live in a third rate universe before we get onto multi verses.
On the other hand he could be a cosmic genius in the only non simulated universe.

The point is that the cosmologist Brian Greenes notion of the simulated universe
Is recognised as a valid scientific punt...........if you think multiverse is proper science that is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

Aw shucks 

Remarkable innit the way he went on immediately to demonstrate both stupidity/dishonesty and unpleasantness.

Hang on I'll just get me violin out

[Stranger]

That if I may say is a good point and there are of course people like yourself who think we live in a third rate universe before we get onto multi verses.
On the other hand he could be a cosmic genius in the only non simulated universe.

Yes, we could be living in the only real universe, created by a "cosmic genius" but you have yet to supply a reason to think that we are - and that, even if we are, said genius has anything at all to do with the god you say you've experienced.

Many (mutually exclusive) god concepts are possible - so are many, many other myths, fables and works of fiction - the point is; are they at all probable? Do we have any reasons to take them seriously?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Do we have any reasons to take them seriously?

Aye!! Because I say so! Right! RIGHT!! And if you have trouble with that, I will see you at four o'clock when the bell rings, bring yer mates, you will need them.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Many (mutually exclusive) god concepts are possible - so are many, many other myths, fables and works of fiction - the point is; are they at all probable? Do we have any reasons to take them seriously?

Well one could say that just because there are many concepts it doesn't mean we don't take the God concept seriously.

In the end it comes down to a natural providence or a divine Providence with only divine providence being able to tie up any straggly ends.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Stranger,

Aye!! Because I say so! Right! RIGHT!! And if you have trouble with that, I will see you at four o'clock when the bell rings, bring yer mates, you will need them.

Gonnagle.

Mr G...........I'm getting quite a cold rush of blood here........are you taking the piss out of Some Kind"........or me............or both?