Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, 'God' is a way to avoid admitting 'we don't know'.

No, there are any number of mathematical models of an infinite universe that do not require any gods.

Neither of those points addresses the question, though: how do you reconcile a theology founded on human free will with the idea of a created universe which would make the idea of free will impossible?

O.

Maths doesn't do Gods. Maths doesn't produce universes.
Why does a created universe make free will impossible.
The important choice to accept or reject God is not about the universe.

[jeremyp]

God is the answer to why something rather than nothing. So the universe could be infinite but only there because of God.

But why God rather than nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. God, if it exists, is something.

And there is no point in making vague references to "the argument from contingency" unless you're ready to present some version of it and defend it. Claiming that a god is 'necessary' is meaningless babble unless you can fully explain it.
 questi
Whoosh!

You have talked about the maths existing for a universe, I have said maths does not by itself make universes exist that needs an actualiser. The question is what is it about the universe that is infinitely actual rather than potential?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But why God rather than nothing?

Because there is a necessary something. So we are back to our quest for what it is about  about the universe that is necessary?

[Stranger]

Why does a created universe make free will impossible.

Free will is an incoherent regardless (except for compatibilism, which doesn't work with respect to a god), but the point was that the best model we have is the 'block universe', so all of time is just a direction through it. A creator god would have had to make the whole of history, not just set it going and stand back.

[ProfessorDavey]

The important choice to accept or reject God is not about the universe.

Biased question - suggesting this is about accepting or rejecting god is a question based on an assumption that god actually exists. There is no credible evidence for the existence of god so until or unless you provide that compelling evidence for the existence of god asking whether we accept or reject god is moot.

[Stranger]

You have talked about the maths...

Didn't mention it.

...I have said maths does not by itself make universes exist that needs an actualiser. The question is what is it about the universe that is infinitely actual rather than potential?

Because there is a necessary something.

Meaningless babble (just as I predicted). Where is the actual argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Free will is an incoherent regardless (except for compatibilism, which doesn't work with respect to a god), but the point was that the best model we have is the 'block universe', so all of time is just a direction through it. A creator god would have had to make the whole of history, not just set it going and stand back.

Free will operates within moral realism, what ought to be done and what can be done. There are no physical constraints on the morality of a situation. Since physicality is neither good or bad but just ''stuff''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Biased question - suggesting this is about accepting or rejecting god is a question based on an assumption that god actually exists. There is no credible evidence for the existence of god so until or unless you provide that compelling evidence for the existence of god asking whether we accept or reject god is moot.

As biased as say philosophical naturalism? I think so and yet you plump for naturalism all the time. ''On what warrant?'' I say.

[jeremyp]

Because there is a necessary something.

But why God?

Can you not see how "God" is not an adequate answer to "why something rather than nothing"? It just raises an other question - well, the same question again.

[ProfessorDavey]

As biased as say philosophical naturalism? I think so and yet you plump for naturalism all the time. ''On what warrant?'' I say.

I disagree - we know that natural things exist as we have ample evidence for their existence. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to make an assumption that something exists where there is an evidence base to support it. To assume that something exists where there is evidence to support it demonstrates reasonable and rational thought.

It is not reasonable to assume that something exists where there is no credible evidence for its existence. To do so demonstrates clear bias.

[Stranger]

Free will operates within moral realism...

Gibberish. Free will is about making choices. Moral realism is irrelevant (as well as absurd).

There are no physical constraints on the morality of a situation. Since physicality is neither good or bad but just ''stuff''

Also irrelevant.

Perhaps you could try again and actually post something that has some connection to what I actually said?

[ProfessorDavey]

There are no physical constraints on the morality of a situation.

Morality is a societal and cultural construct. It does not exist outside of the those boundaries, which are narrowly associated with living species with sufficient higher consciousness and a largely communal behaviour.

Imagine the universe before any life emerged - the notion of morality is meaningless.

Imagine the universe where life has developed but only to the level of simply single cell organisms - the notion of morality is also meaningless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But why God?

Can you not see how "God" is not an adequate answer to "why something rather than nothing"? It just raises an other question - well, the same question again.

He is actual rather than potential and therefore cannot not be. i.e. that is His sufficient reason.

[jeremyp]

He is actual rather than potential and therefore cannot not be. i.e. that is His sufficient reason.

By why is he there rather than not there?

[ProfessorDavey]

He is actual rather than potential and therefore cannot not be. i.e. that is His sufficient reason.

Handwaving assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Given that there is no evidence that god even exists speculating about the nature of this god is doubly pointless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Morality is a societal and cultural construct. It does not exist outside of the those boundaries,

in several which are narrowly associated with living species with sufficient higher consciousness and a largely communal behaviour.

Imagine the universe before any life emerged - the notion of morality is meaningless.

Imagine the universe where life has developed but only to the level of simply single cell organisms - the notion of morality is also meaningless.

A moral reality is like mathematical reality. There are moral equations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Handwaving assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Given that there is no evidence that god even exists speculating about the nature of this god is doubly pointless.

It's logical that something is potential until it is actualised and that leads back to an actual actualiser that is never merely a potential.

Whether that is a temporal heirarchy or a vertical heirarchy of dependence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By why is he there rather than not there?

Because He cannot not be. Can one say that of the universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

A moral reality is like mathematical reality. There are moral equations.

Such as Vlad.

I understand that sometimes these types of thought experiment are used in discourse over the competing merits of various moral theories. But this is merely a manifestation of the societal and cultural nature of what we describe as morality. None of this means a bean outside of the constraints of those cultural and societal boundaries.

What on earth does 'thou shall not kill' mean within a universe without any life? It is meaningless.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because He cannot not be.

You are doing it again - just repeating unevidenced assertions again and again does advance your argument one iota - until you provide some evidence that god even exists the notion that god couldn't not exist makes no sense as you haven't demonstrate that god exists.

[Stranger]

He is actual rather than potential and therefore cannot not be. i.e. that is His sufficient reason.

It's logical that something is potential until it is actualised and that leads back to an actual actualiser that is never merely a potential.

Whether that is a temporal heirarchy or a vertical heirarchy of dependence.

Hand-waving gibberish. Where is any actual reasoning?

Because He cannot not be. Can one say that of the universe.

Of course we can say it, every bit as easily as we can say it for some imagined god. Your problem is actually making an argument that establishes why we need something that cannot not be, how it's even possible that something cannot not be, and why that applies to your god and not anything else.

The floor is yours...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are doing it again - just repeating unevidenced assertions again and again does advance your argument one iota - until you provide some evidence that god even exists the notion that god couldn't not exist makes no sense as you haven't demonstrate that god exists.

By definition, if the actual actualizer which is not itself potential did not exist, nothing else would since there would be nothing to actualise it. Since potential things have been actually actualised they must have an actual actualizer and that must exist and has never not existed. And that in a nutshell is it. Nothing else comes close to that argument.
I'm afraid.

[ProfessorDavey]

By definition, if the actual actualizer which is not itself potential did not exist, nothing else would since there would be nothing to actualise it. Since potential things have been actually actualised they must have an actual actualizer and that must exist and has never not existed. And that in a nutshell is it. Nothing else comes close to that argument.
I'm afraid.

Absolute non-sense.

You are just adding additional waves of unevidenced assertion to try (in vain) to justify you other unevidenced assertion. That doesn't strengthen your argument, it just sends it spiralling into greater and greater nonsense with less, rather than more, credence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolute non-sense.

You are just adding additional waves of unevidenced assertion to try (in vain) to justify you other unevidenced assertion. That doesn't strengthen your argument, it just sends it spiralling into greater and greater nonsense with less, rather than more, credence.

It's not absolute nonsense at all. Where for instance does it fall down? You haven't said.

All you are saying is it isn't the way the universe is working this instant. To which I say, in all this sea of actualised potential we observe, what ,where, or whom is the actual actualiser?