Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Nearly Sane]

Hoorah, back to good old infinite regression.

Or special pleading possibly

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hoorah, back to good old infinite regression.

Prove infinite regression. In other words prove it's necessity.
We know that this is a universe of cause and effect so why should the universe flout it's defining feature? On the other hand does that need to be true of a universal creator?

[Nearly Sane]

Prove infinite regression. In other words prove it's necessity.
We know that this is a universe of cause and effect so why should the universe flout it's defining feature? On the other hand does that need to be true of a universal creator?

  It's the logical conclusion of using an argument that if order needs to be created, then whatever created that would need to be created etc etc. It isn't a claim that it exists - it's pointing out that it's not useful as an argument unless you use special pleading which then makes it illogical in a different way

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  It's the logical conclusion of using an argument that if order needs to be created, then whatever created that would need to be created etc etc. It isn't a claim that it exists - it's pointing out that it's not useful as an argument unless you use special pleading which then makes it illogical in a different way

This is why Russell hit the buffers. The logic he is using is palpably and as he himself admitted only geared up for the just is explanation of the universe.

There is no way of dealing with that without some encountering what looks like special pleading either on behalf of the universe or God.....but since we have the universe then special pleading goes against, as I said, it's signature features.

The Aristotelian argument is that everything seems at any moment to derive it's being, it's position and it's status from something else but derived being etc is illogical without actual and thus by logic we have what looks like a unique. I'll leave that to you to sort that out into the notional ''logic'' you speak of.

[Nearly Sane]

This is why Russell hit the buffers. The logic he is using is palpably and as he himself admitted only geared up for the just is explanation of the universe.

There is no way of dealing with that without some encountering what looks like special pleading either on behalf of the universe or God.....but since we have the universe then special pleading goes against, as I said, it's signature features.

The Aristotelian argument is that everything seems at any moment to derive it's being, it's position and it's status from something else but derived being etc is illogical without actual and thus by logic we have what looks like a unique. I'll leave that to you to sort that out into the notional ''logic'' you speak of.

No, because I'm not claiming anything about the universe - my claim is I don't know. That doesn't help that using order must be caused by something with order either involves special pleading or an infinite regress.  Please stop going down the misrepresentation route

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, because I'm not claiming anything about the universe - my claim is I don't know.

Unfortunately your don't know is indistinguishable from a 'just is' or 'don't go there'. Since doing so reveals flaws in whatever logical system you seem to be appealing to.

That's before we consider whether it's an ''I don't know, but....''

[Nearly Sane]

Unfortunately your don't know is indistinguishable from a 'just is' or 'don't go there'. Since doing so reveals flaws in whatever logical system you seem to be appealing to.

That's before we consider whether it's an ''I don't know, but....''

No, it's an I don't know - again stop misrepresenting me. And none of that makes the problems with Spud's argument any different.

[Owlswing]

 No, because I'm not claiming anything about the universe - my claim is I don't know. That doesn't help that using order must be caused by something with order either involves special pleading or an infinite regress.  Please stop going down the misrepresentation route

He can't! It is a one way street and he has neither the desire nor the ability to leave it. To do so would bring his entire philosophical and religious edifice crashing down around his ears in a shower of shit!

[Stranger]

It isn't baseless at all. There is nothing more baseless about an intelligent creator than a universe which can just puff itself into existence or defies cause or effect.

Who claimed that? We know the universe exists - we don't know that an intelligent creator does - that's just a guess.

Unfortunately your don't know is indistinguishable from a 'just is' or 'don't go there'.

Obvious drivel.

Since doing so reveals flaws in whatever logical system you seem to be appealing to.

More drivel. If we are basing our conclusions on evidence and logic and there isn't enough to draw a conclusion, then "I don't know" is a rational response.

That's before we consider whether it's an ''I don't know, but....''

There is no "but". I don't know and guessing is silly.

[floo]

We don't know how the universe was formed, we can speculate all we like until there is verifiable evidence to support our speculations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who claimed that? We know the universe exists - we don't know that an intelligent creator does - that's just a guess.

Obvious drivel.

More drivel. If we are basing our conclusions on evidence and logic and there isn't enough to draw a conclusion, then "I don't know" is a rational response.

And ''I don't know but''.....is that rational? Because that seems quintessentially to be your line....I don't know but God is out of the question......Shoddy, shabby and shitty on your part I'm afraid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We don't know how the universe was formed, we can speculate all we like until there is verifiable evidence to support our speculations.

But the assertion was that an intelligent creator isn't even worth consideration....IOW ''We don't know, but...'' which is shoddy, shabby and shitty.

[Stranger]

And ''I don't know but''.....is that rational? Because that seems quintessentially to be your line....I don't know but God is out of the question......Shoddy, shabby and shitty on your part I'm afraid.

Why are you lying about what I said?

LOOK:

There is no "but". I don't know and guessing is silly.

I never said that god was out of the question. How about honestly addressing what I said instead of lying about it?

[floo]

But the assertion was that an intelligent creator isn't even worth consideration....IOW ''We don't know, but...'' which is shoddy, shabby and shitty.

I actually said an intelligent designer could possibly exist, but was speculating about what created it, should it do so.

[Spud]

  It's the logical conclusion of using an argument that if order needs to be created, then whatever created that would need to be created etc etc.

"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."

Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god

[Nearly Sane]

"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."

Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god

Quoted from SpecialPleadingFallaciesAreUs.com

[Gordon]

"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."

Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god

Spud

You really do need to keep away from these creationist drivel sites: why not try something that is, comparatively, on a far higher intellectual plane - the Beano, for example.

[Stranger]

"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."

Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god

The same page also repeats the blatant lie so beloved of some theists:

Today’s atheists, who like to use words like ‘rational’, ‘reasonable’ and ‘scientific’ in describing their beliefs, believe that the greatest beginning of all—that of the universe—had no cause whatsoever!

The point of the matter is that nobody actually knows why the universe as we observe it exists - we can produce conjectures based on what is known, in the hope of finding testable hypotheses, or you can make wild, fairytale guesses like your god.

As for the rest of the site - it's laughable. You don't actually believe the young universe drivel it's pushing, do you? We may not know the answer to why it exists but to claim it's just 6,000 years old is just silly beyond words...

[BeRational]

"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."

Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god

Perhaps the cosmos is eternal and our local universe had a beginning.

[jeremyp]

"The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit."

Quoted from
https://creation.com/who-created-god

But we haven't established that the Universe needs a cause yet.

Vlad makes the classic mistake of observing that things in the Universe have causes (actually, that is a dubious claim in itself but we'll let it pass) and assuming that the Universe must therefore have a cause. That's as erroneous as observing that all the players in the Man United squad have two legs, therefore Man United has two legs.

[Spud]

But we haven't established that the Universe needs a cause yet.

Vlad makes the classic mistake of observing that things in the Universe have causes (actually, that is a dubious claim in itself but we'll let it pass) and assuming that the Universe must therefore have a cause. That's as erroneous as observing that all the players in the Man United squad have two legs, therefore Man United has two legs.

In your view, did it have a beginning? If so, doesn't that mean it must have a cause?

[Stranger]

In your view, did it have a beginning?

This in not known.

If so, doesn't that mean it must have a cause?

Not necessarily.

For example, if we take the view of the universe provided by General Relativity (GR), then it is a four dimensional space-time manifold. Time is a part of it, not something that exists independently of it. So although the time dimension would be finite in the past time-like direction (according to GR), the manifold itself would be timeless and unchanging.

That is just an example (there are all sorts of hypotheses based on different ideas about how GR and quantum mechanics might be unified) but it makes the point about postulating a god not actually answering any fundamental questions: instead of an unexplained four dimensional manifold that just exists, you have an unexplained 'god' that just exists and just happened to want to create a  four dimensional manifold.

It's a blind guess and it's got you nowhere in terms of answering the "why stuff exists" question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But we haven't established that the Universe needs a cause yet.

Vlad makes the classic mistake of observing that things in the Universe have causes (actually, that is a dubious claim in itself but we'll let it pass) and assuming that the Universe must therefore have a cause. That's as erroneous as observing that all the players in the Man United squad have two legs, therefore Man United has two legs.

Wrong, the universe could be around forever. The question is though why something and not nothing.

What is the evidence that it doesn't have a cause, where is the evidence that it ''just is?''

And if you argue that something could just be eternal you then have no business asking questions like ''who made God'' or guff talk about infinite regresses.

Atheists end up both hating and appealing to the infinite.

[Stranger]

Wrong, the universe could be around forever.

That is a separate question as to whether it needs a cause.

The question is though why something and not nothing.

A question which guessing there might be a god clearly doesn't answer.

What is the evidence that it doesn't have a cause, where is the evidence that it ''just is?''

I don't think anybody was making that claim. The point is that we don't know, so trying to argue for a god on the basis that the universe needs a cause, is flawed.

The point is the double standards applied by theists who claim that the universe can't "just be" but their favourite deity can.

And if you argue that something could just be eternal you then have no business asking questions like ''who made God'' or guff talk about infinite regresses.

FFS - do keep up. It's theists (like Spud) who keep telling us that order (in this case) needs a cause but then failing to apply the same 'logic' to the ordered god they've guessed exists to be the cause of order.

Atheists end up both hating and appealing to the infinite.

No, you've just hopelessly misunderstood again...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am surprised that so many atheists are willing to abandon cause and effect when it suits.
It will make a comeback and atheists will be using it to argue against miracles when it suits....Just wait and see.

So we are back on Hume territory where he has things popping in and out of nothing? Because he can imagine it.

Well Mr Hume, suppose we were in the Rose in Edinburgh, you in your funny wee hat and something just popped out of nowhere. You would say ''see something popped out of nothing....''

....To which I would say, ''Ah Mr Hume, how do we know it didn't come from somewhere else?''