Everything from nothing

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you think you have an handle on reality and God isn't necessary? Seems like a very
self contained point of view, accept what agrees with your current point of view and shine
on anything that does not fit.

We get into questions like the one this OP has and some people hate the question and/or
call it unnecessary. People claim to see the universe as ...[text shortened]... od, but typically that question is blown off to run back to the on
going processes around life.

You're basically arguing for the god of the gaps here. If we don't know how it started, we should acknowledge the possibility that god did it. It's a theologically weak argument, made even more so in light of the numerous previous gaps that now has natural explanations (such as biodiversity). Science has outshined religion in explanatory power many times in the past. Religion has never returned the favour, not even once. My bet is on science to explain current gaps of knowledge in the future, not because I necessarily want it to be that way, but because that's historically true, and I see no reason why suddenly that would change. It's in the methods used to obtain knowledge, and those are still the same.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The trouble with this isn't that God is undetectable, it is that He reveals Himself to those
that seek Him with their whole hearts. Those that reject Him will not receive the gift of
faith, it is like people are walking in two directions some towards the Light of the world
and behold Him, and those with their backs to Him walking away never seeing Him,
...[text shortened]... moving toward Him.

You claim to see reality yet you are missing the One who gave us reality.

If I have to put myself into a special state of mind in order to detect his presence, I can't be certain that he's any more real than what I observe in REM sleep.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Expressing your opinion isn't being rude, personal attacks are and I really cannot recall
you ever doing that.

Well, I think I've had my weak moments of failing to contain my frustration and the unnecessary insults that ensue 😳 but I'm glad you can't recall them (and perhaps that's been more in RJHinds' direction), but I assure you I do my best to avoid them. They're such a conversation stopper, after all.

For the record, you come across as quite civil even when I clearly annoy you, which is something I always admire in people. Cheers, for that! 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok. I will sit down over the weekend and go through the whole thing formally.

Bayes theorem is a mathematically proven deductive argument.

The premises are inductive statements of probability.

If you/we can agree that the premises I use are sound, and beyond reasonable dispute,
then the conclusion, whatever that is, MUST also be sound and beyond reasonable dispute.

Well ok, I'll try to follow you on this, but from what I've read around the web on Bayes theorum you're on pretty shaky ground using it on this particular argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK. Would you at least answer this question so I know what you disagree with:
Do you think it is beyond any and all reasonable doubt that the universe was not created by a flower fairy?

At least a flower fairy is something. And even something as silly as a flower fairy would make more sense than believing the universe was created out of nothing by a (nonexistent) nothing fairy.

Originally posted by C Hess
You're basically arguing for the god of the gaps here. If we don't know how it started, we should acknowledge the possibility that god did it. It's a theologically weak argument, made even more so in light of the numerous previous gaps that now has natural explanations (such as biodiversity). Science has outshined religion in explanatory power many times in t ...[text shortened]... y that would change. It's in the methods used to obtain knowledge, and those are still the same.

I'm arguing that one position is impossible not improbable, but impossible! There is no way
that nothing, will do nothing, with nothing and get everything. So that leaves us with the
need of something that can do this. Energy was brought up and God was too, energy unless
you have some means to direct itself I fail to see what it could do on its own, while God
have no doubt that fits all of the needs and can handle all of the questions.

You have not shown me anything yet that addresses where everything comes from.
I assume you want to talk about some process, but there is no natural explanation I'm
aware of that can do it, nothing in science I've seen that touches it either except to
suggest maybe its an on going process. Science loves its processes.

Originally posted by C Hess
If I have to put myself into a special state of mind in order to detect his presence, I can't be certain that he's any more real than what I observe in REM sleep.

No, you cannot put yourself in a state of mind to find God, God calls you answer. It isn't
us pulling God down to where we are, it is God lifting us up.

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, I think I've had my weak moments of failing to contain my frustration and the unnecessary insults that ensue 😳 but I'm glad you can't recall them (and perhaps that's been more in RJHinds' direction), but I assure you I do my best to avoid them. They're such a conversation stopper, after all.

For the record, you come across as quite civil even when I clearly annoy you, which is something I always admire in people. Cheers, for that! 🙂

Thank you, I've had real bad moments here too. Wish and hope to do better as well.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm arguing that one position is impossible not improbable, but impossible! There is no way
that nothing, will do nothing, with nothing and get everything.

I'm far from a physicist, but I don't think anyone is arguing that everything came from an absolute nothing (except believers in creation ex nihilo by a god). My argument is merely a could be, not backed by anything other than the fact that energy exists, matter is made from it, and you can't seem to create or destroy it. It doesn't appear impossible to me that the most basic form of universe creating energy could be eternal, and thus our universe was born of it, as one of many similar, inevitable but random events. I admit it's completely untestable, but hardly impossible. In fact, I would dare say it's the more likely explanation since there's only one assumption here: that energy alone can give rise to universes.

Originally posted by lemon lime
At least a flower fairy is something. And even something as silly as a flower fairy would make more sense than believing the universe was created out of nothing by a (nonexistent) nothing fairy.

Just because something doesn't 'make sense' to you doesn't mean it's inherently unlikely.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, you cannot put yourself in a state of mind to find God, God calls you answer. It isn't
us pulling God down to where we are, it is God lifting us up.

I guess he has yet to call on me. Well, there are billions of people trampling around, after all. I'm sure he'll get around to calling me.

🙂

Eventually?

Right?

😕

Uhm, god? Hello? You there? Oh, right, I don't call him, he calls me. I hope he's not just telling you that, with no intention of ever calling me.

😠

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Beyond reasonable doubt certainly. Beyond any doubt? Dunno about that.

The sentence doesn't say 'beyond any doubt'. I realize it could be read that way, but it is not the correct reading.

Originally posted by lemon lime
At least a flower fairy is something. And even something as silly as a flower fairy would make more sense than believing the universe was created out of nothing by a (nonexistent) nothing fairy.

I agree. Its interesting that nobody believes that yet you thought it worthwhile to mention it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The sentence doesn't say 'beyond any doubt'. I realize it could be read that way, but it is not the correct reading.

I did wonder. Then yes, I agree, it's very unlikely that the universe was created by a flower fairy (or the god of the bible). Is that beyond all reasonable doubt? You're going to need to define what you mean by a flower fairy I think.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have not shown me anything yet that addresses where everything comes from.
I assume you want to talk about some process, but there is no natural explanation I'm
aware of that can do it, nothing in science I've seen that touches it either except to
suggest maybe its an on going process. Science loves its processes.

Why do we have to show you how the universe got started? It’s Christians who have a need for it to have had a beginning because that is part of their God-concept. The claim that God created everything ex nihilo cannot be empirically tested, neither falsified nor verified, because all the 'evidence' you can point to is inside the universe, and God isn't.

Explanations come to an end somewhere. At some point, the spade is turned and there simply isn’t any more evidence, neither for nor against; logic runs out and reasons are exhausted. The question is, what does one do at that point? Run and hide behind the apron strings of the Magic Fairy, or accept that there are limits we cannot breach and questions we cannot answer? Buddhists say it doesn’t matter whether the universe had a beginning or no beginning. I can leave it at that. Christians evidently can't.

“Goddidit” leaves a bigger mystery than the one it allegedly explains.