Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[ProfessorDavey]

1) Inability? for whom?

Once again Vlad is unable to see anything except through the blinkers of whom, implying a conscious being. Why is there any necessity for a whom.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

An assertion without evidence.

And only a fool claims to have no doubt in an assertion, without any evidence to back up their assertion.

We should call it “Vlad’s paradox”: the less evidence he has, the more certain he is. Thus zero evidence = total certainty.

[Stranger]

My point is that energy (as as property) does not seem to be contingent on something else as it is effectively constant within the universe and is unable to be created nor destroyed. And given that we have spent much of this thread discussing basic physical laws, which are human descriptions of physical properties and relationships, then I'd have thought discussion of energy as a property that seems not to be contingent on anything else seems highly relevant.

But energy can't exist without stuff, so it must be contingent on the existence of stuff. It's also a conserved quantity because of the time translation symmetry of the universe, just like (linear) momentum is conserved because of the space translation symmetry (Noether's theorem), so its conservation depends on the symmetries of the universe itself.

[Owlswing]

I try to not go there L R, I think if you did make a start you might find yourself gradually start loosing the will to live.

Regards, ippy.

There is one good about responding to him, you get a very clear indication when you have scored a hit! He ignores it rather than belittling you! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again Vlad is unable to see anything except through the blinkers of whom, implying a conscious being. Why is there any necessity for a whom.

I say that the universe is either created, infinite, or appeared spontaneously. I have even mentioned Tegmark who has mathematics as the ruling principle for physicality. It is atheists who dismiss creation or if they recognise it cling to the unconscious and impersonal. In fact at any point the atheist seeks out the unconscious, impersonal alternative even in the face of what they call The laws being physicalised as if by magic and in a bobs your uncle fashion, hey presto it's all there manner. An even bigger hint at straw clutching by atheists is the attraction for an infinite universe. This, of course, seemingly gets rid of all atheists problems.

By ''whom'' I meant humanity but it is unreasonable to exclude a personal creator since personality exists and things are created by persons in the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is one good about responding to him, you get a very clear indication when you have scored a hit! He ignores it rather than belittling you!

Yes but it's what your idea of a ''hit'' is.

[jeremyp]

Not sure that's true because eventually contingencies have to end in a necessary.

How do you know it's not turtles all the way down?

Sounds like you are unsure if you need an entity or not

Trouble is, if you need an entity, you need an entity for that entity and an entity for that entity and so on. So either you have an infinite chain of entities or you stop at some point and designate one entity special. If you are going to do that, you might as well make it the very first entity i.e. the Universe, not the second entity - your god.

Could this entity be unintelligent?

Yep. An fact it has to be. Otherwise we have to ask where its intelligence came from.

That actually was the proposal of the steady state theory previous to big bang.....But where is that theory now?

Wrong. The steady state hypothesis was proposed as an alternative to the Big Bang. It acknowledges the expansion of the Universe but proposes that it is eternal and new matter is constantly being created in the gaps. It failed because the Big Bang Theory correctly predicted how much helium there is in the Universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation and it didn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know it's not turtles all the way down?
Trouble is, if you need an entity, you need an entity for that entity and an entity for that entity and so on. So either you have an infinite chain of entities or you stop at some point and designate one entity special. If you are going to do that, you might as well make it the very first entity i.e. the Universe, not the second entity - your god.
Yep. An fact it has to be. Otherwise we have to ask where its intelligence came from.
Wrong. The steady state hypothesis was proposed as an alternative to the Big Bang. It acknowledges the expansion of the Universe but proposes that it is eternal and new matter is constantly being created in the gaps. It failed because the Big Bang Theory correctly predicted how much helium there is in the Universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation and it didn't.

How then can an infinity deliver if we are infinitely dependent on something coming up with the actual goods? Why is their anything in an infinity anyway? Even if infinity were a string of events like a train. What keeps a train moving? Aren't you proposing a perpetual motion machine since the universe follows the laws ofthermodynamics?

[Stranger]

I say that the universe is either created, infinite, or appeared spontaneously.

Still ignoring the fact that, according to general relativity, the space-time just is.

I have even mentioned Tegmark who has mathematics as the ruling principle for physicality.

Which is also a guess. However, at least mathematics basically consists of truisms, so they are at least logically necessary. It also has the advantage of simplicity.

It is atheists who dismiss creation or if they recognise it cling to the unconscious and impersonal. In fact at any point the atheist seeks out the unconscious, impersonal alternative even in the face of what they call The laws being physicalised as if by magic and in a bobs your uncle fashion, hey presto it's all there manner.

Just like your god just happens to be for no reason (still waiting for an actual argument about necessity). The existence of a god that creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe - that's why it's nothing but a pointless guess.

An even bigger hint at straw clutching by atheists is the attraction for an infinite universe. This of course gets rid of all atheists problems.

Of course it doesn't. You're still stuck in Newtonian thinking. A past timelike infinity is simply irrelevant.

By whom I meant humanity but it is unreasonable to exclude a personal creator since personality exists and things are created by persons in the universe.

And persons exist because of the unconscious process of evolution. All the evidence we have is that conscious beings need an ordered universe, not the other way around.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yep. An fact it has to be. Otherwise we have to ask where its intelligence came from.

Nope, because if it were unintelligent what would stop it creating the physical or constantly changing the parameters of the universe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still ignoring the fact that, according to general relativity, the space-time just is.

Which is also a guess. However, at least mathematics basically consists of truisms, so they are at least logically necessary. It also has the advantage of simplicity.

Just like your god just happens to be for no reason (still waiting for an actual argument about necessity). The existence of a god that creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe - that's why it's nothing but a pointless guess.

Of course it doesn't. You're still stuck in Newtonian thinking. A past timelike infinity is simply irrelevant.

And persons exist because of the unconscious process of evolution. All the evidence we have is that conscious beings need an ordered universe, not the other way around.

It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.

[Stranger]

It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.

Firstly, this is still Newtonian thinking about time. Secondly, why would you think that (Tegmark is a counterexample)? Thirdly, why would you expect consciousness to produce consistency (I'm assuming you're conscious but your idea of what constitutes a god changes like the weather)? Fourthly, any sort of "creator" is a guess and anything about it is also a guess (until and unless we get an actual argument or evidence).

[Stranger]

Nope, because if it were unintelligent what would stop it creating the physical or constantly changing the parameters of the universe?

The fact that it hasn't got a mind to change.

[jeremyp]

How then can an infinity deliver if we are infinitely dependent on something coming up with the actual goods? Why is their anything in an infinity anyway? Even if infinity were a string of events like a train. What keeps a train moving? Aren't you proposing a perpetual motion machine since the universe follows the laws ofthermodynamics?

Again you are confusing the Universe with the things in it.

"A string of events" implies time. Time is a property of the Universe not something in which the Universe exists.

[jeremyp]

Nope, because if it were unintelligent what would stop it creating the physical or constantly changing the parameters of the universe?

If the creator of the Universe can be unintelligent, why bother with a creator at all? Why not just say the Universe "is"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, this is still Newtonian thinking about time. Secondly, why would you think that (Tegmark is a counterexample)? Thirdly, why would you expect consciousness to produce consistency (I'm assuming you're conscious but your idea of what constitutes a god changes like the weather)? Fourthly, any sort of "creator" is a guess and anything about it is also a guess (until and unless we get an actual argument or evidence).

A one of Big bang is not consistent. It's a one of, one universe is not consistency, It's just a one of, matter/energy constantly created , parameters constantly changing IS consistent. I didn't make the argument for consistency but control and self control. The one universe with one set of rules shows remarkable control and self control.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the creator of the Universe can be unintelligent, why bother with a creator at all? Why not just say the Universe "is"?

Intellectual surrender.

[jeremyp]

Intellectual surrender.

Occam's razor actually.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Occam's razor actually.

Oh dear another misunderstanding of the razor. You have to establish what is a necessary entity and what isn't. Just saying the universe just is does not answer that. An unconscious creator is still a creator existing non dependently on what it creates and therefore not part of the universe.

[jeremyp]

Oh dear another misunderstanding of the razor.

Thanks. It would be useful if you continued to flag up the fallacies and falsehoods in your arguments at the beginning of each post. It will save us a lot of time going forward.

You have to establish what is a necessary entity and what isn't.

This is what we are trying to do. The problem is that you will only accept one answer, not based on rationality or argument but based on the fact that you want God to be real.

Just saying the universe just is does not answer that. An unconscious creator is still a creator existing non dependently on what it creates and therefore not part of the universe.

Just saying God exists does not answer it either, but, at least in my version we haven't multiplied entities unnecessarily.

[Stranger]

A one of Big bang is not consistent. It's a one of, one universe is not consistency, It's just a one of, matter/energy constantly created , parameters constantly changing IS consistent.

Utterly baseless assertion. Where is your reasoning? And you're still stuck in Newtonian thinking.

I didn't make the argument for consistency but control and self control. The one universe with one set of rules shows remarkable control and self control.

Firstly, it's total gibberish to claim the universe shows "remarkable control and self control". Secondly, how do you know that there's only one universe? Thirdly, Tegmark is still a counterexample.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The fact that it hasn't got a mind to change.

That of course would consign us to an eternity of no universe or an eternity of nonstop change and creation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utterly baseless assertion. Where is your reasoning? And you're still stuck in Newtonian thinking.

Firstly, it's total gibberish to claim the universe shows "remarkable control and self control". Secondly, how do you know that there's only one universe? Thirdly, Tegmark is still a counterexample.

No I didn't say the universe shows remarkable control and self control. I said the creator has these, not the universe.

A one of of course is rarely penetrable to science which depends on repeatability

There may be more than one universe but not an unlimited number. One has to be careful in the pursuit of multiple universes as it could be spurred on by one's atheism rather than wholesome scientific pursuit.

How is Tegmark a counter example?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks. It would be useful if you continued to flag up the fallacies and falsehoods in your arguments at the beginning of each post. It will save us a lot of time going forward.
This is what we are trying to do. The problem is that you will only accept one answer, not based on rationality or argument but based on the fact that you want God to be real.

Just saying God exists does not answer it either, but, at least in my version we haven't multiplied entities unnecessarily.

I would have thought that to be certain you haven't the universe would have had to demonstrably self created or be demonstrably infinite. Good luck with those.

The universe just is is no answer. an unintelligent creator is an entity like an intelligent creator but still not part of the universe. It's hard to see what you have achieved.

[Stranger]

No I didn't say the universe shows remarkable control and self control. I said the creator has these, not the universe.

Which is equally silly.

A one of of course is rarely penetrable to science which depends on repeatability

Until you come up with an argument, you're playing a guessing game here - what's the relevance of science?

There may be more than one universe but not an unlimited number. One has to be careful in the pursuit of multiple universes as it could be spurred on by one's atheism rather than wholesome scientific pursuit.

It's you who is trying to base an argument on the number of universes, not me. We have no idea if there are others or how many.

How is Tegmark a counter example?

Because it's an alternative guess that doesn't involve a conscious creator and doesn't suffer from the problems you keep on asserting there would be without one.