News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

Started by Drew_2017, February 19, 2017, 05:17:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Unbeliever

Quote from: trdsf on April 20, 2017, 12:52:23 PM
That this universe was created by intelligences from another universe, and that ultimately intelligence in this universe may do the same?  Well, it has the advantage of not calling on anything supernatural, but I don't know one might prove it, and it appears as unsatisfying an explanation to the beginning of the universe as panspermia is to abiogenesis and the appearance of life on Earth.  Acosmogenesis (if I may be permitted the neologism) had to happen in some universe, even if ours is a creation of intelligences in another.  Where did their universe come from, and if theirs was created by intelligences in yet another universe, where did that one come from?  Infinite regress is simply not an answer -- it's no different from turtles all the way down.
Yep, that nails pretty well why I'm not convinced - where did it all begin?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

aitm

Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 20, 2017, 01:13:42 PM
God as absolute substance before the metaverse is infinite in expanse and finite in quantity. It is one. There can be only one. The inverse of this (quantum cavitation) is finite in expanse and infinite in quantity.

The simplest geometric expression of this is an infinite number of equal sized voided spheres as a plain in honeycomb-like arrangement, 6 spheres around a central 7th. There is no other way equal sized spheres arrange. This metaversal plane is infinite along the horizontal, and one universe high vertically, they are all lofted into being as the original infinite God divides into equal halves (no matter where you divide the infinite substance by a plain it will always be in perfect half) if I were to anthropomophize this I'd say creation came out of Gods navel.

The appearance of that plain is T1 for all those universes. The appearance of the next plain is T2 for the first plain and T1 for the new plain....and so on and so on.   

If I were to anthropomorphize the spheres of the metaversal plains, I would describe a polymastic Goddess with many wombs full of life.


That's a whole new level of, " if you can't dazzle them with brilliance......"
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Baruch

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 20, 2017, 08:26:39 AM
You're under the mistaken assumption that time is a constraint here. It's not. It's what allows the creative cause in the first place. To cause or create the universe is to effect a change of having no universe before to having a universe after, but that requires there to be a 'before' to be changed into an 'after' â€" hence, time of some sort or another. Without time, there can be no change and therefore no causation and creation.

From the POV of light, the Big Bang never happened.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#903
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 20, 2017, 09:09:46 AM
First off, time is not man-made. Things seemed to happen long before man even existed, let alone came up with any sort of time concept â€" I'm talking about the structure that keeps everything from happening at once, not the concepts we use to comprehend it. Second, you need some kind of way to connect that the condition of (say) not having a universe with the condition of having one. To even talk about change is to talk about some situation that is the same even though it is different. You need some notion of 'before' and 'after' and/or that the universe 'had' a different status than it has 'now.'

I challenge you to use 'change' or 'creation' or 'cause' without implicitly invoking some kind of time. I dare you. I guarantee you that you will commit a stolen concept fallacy every time.

Time was measured artificially by clocks, which were created so that all the Medieval monks could pray at the same time (to magnify the power of prayer).  Space is created when I take two objects that were next to each other, and separate them.  And that is the problem with non-jargon usage of common words.

The idea of space vs time, actually predates Einstein and Newton .. it was in use by Niccolo Tartaglia in 1537, initiating the study of ballistics.  But the modern version, spacetime, dates to 1908, by Minkowski.  People create this, they don't discover it.  Some creations are more useful than others.  The caloric theory of heat is more useful than the phlogiston theory of heat.

http://www.historytoday.com/dunia-garcia-ontiveros/treasures-london-library-unlucky-genius?utm_source=History+Today&utm_campaign=9e6b4941f7-weekly_0306&utm_medium=email
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 20, 2017, 01:41:45 PM
First off, mine was a tongue in cheek response to altm.

Second, the God I believe to exist objectively provides for the opening of universal space, the organization of atoms and the formation of DNA among many other things. All of this by objective geometric vibration and specific interference patterns. None of it was or needs to be "decided upon" or "intelligently designed." What ever can happen, will happen.

You might as well be mad at gravity for people tripping and falling.
Mine was tongue in cheek as well--but with a bit more bite.  In other words, your god is simply an uncaring and unthinking creator.  It just creates for the hell of it.  If so, then what is the difference of creation by this god or by no god at all--just 'nature'???

BTW, I'm not 'mad at' your god.  I'm not mad at any god.  They are all equal in that they are each and every one of them, a fiction.  But I am 'mad at' each and every hierarchy that supports each religion.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2017, 08:13:14 PM
Mine was tongue in cheek as well--but with a bit more bite.  In other words, your god is simply an uncaring and unthinking creator.  It just creates for the hell of it.  If so, then what is the difference of creation by this god or by no god at all--just 'nature'???

BTW, I'm not 'mad at' your god.  I'm not mad at any god.  They are all equal in that they are each and every one of them, a fiction.  But I am 'mad at' each and every hierarchy that supports each religion.

Everyone here is a misanthrope.  To each their own misanthropy.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on April 20, 2017, 08:15:12 PM
Everyone here is a misanthrope.  To each their own misanthropy.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2017, 08:18:15 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Misanthropy is ugly ... no matter the eye.  Not that I am free of self hate ... species wise.  But I am willing to acknowledge my ugliness.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on April 20, 2017, 08:21:10 PM
Misanthropy is ugly ... no matter the eye.  Not that I am free of self hate ... species wise.  But I am willing to acknowledge my ugliness.
According to your definition then your are right.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2017, 08:27:32 PM
According to your definition then your are right.

Yes, an ontological proof that I am a demigod.  Apes however ... aren't right about anything.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

Hakurei Reimu

QuoteFirst off, the underlined parts are strawmen. Nobody who knows anything about cosmology or philosophy ever made the claim that naturalistic forces or anything else "create themselves." Furthermore, without a specific set of conditions present in whatever the universe is embedded in, to even suppose that the universe was created at all is jumping the gun.

If you argue against theism, the belief we owe our existence to a transcendent personal being who intentionally designed the universe for life, regardless of how you articulate it whether you say the universe existed somehow for eternity past, came into existence uncaused out of nothing, was the result of some subset of the laws of physics we are familiar with, or some super set we are unfamiliar with, those alternatives would still amount to an unguided naturalistic explanation of our existence.

What do you mean by whatever the universe is embedded in? The last I heard most scientists still believe the universe (at least in its present form) began to exist 14 billion years ago. There are alternative theories with little consensus.   

QuoteWithout some sort of time for that creation to take place in, nobody and nothing can create a universe, including a God â€" without some sort of external time, the universe either exists or it doesn't 'forever. 

That in part is why a so called supernatural or transcendent explanation is called for. In a virtual universe we can slow down or speed up time at will because the creators of virtual universes are transcendent to it.

QuoteThis is like finding a fleck of iron in a boulder and concluding that the boulder was designed for transportation (like a car is). A car is what I would call well-designed for human transport: each and every component of it in some way contributes to the task of human transportation, from fuel storage to torque transmission to safety to comfort. A boulder is very much not well-designed for human transport, and by the same criteria for well-designed, the universe isn't very well-designed for life, and sentient life even less so.

I've said often there is a basis for belief in naturalism in fact I made a case for it as I did for theism. That's the point if you're going to say elements of the universe that comport with naturalism are evidence in favor of naturalism then you have to acknowledge the points of evidence that don't fit that narrative favor the theist narrative. But no one here is willing and I suspect you won't be either. I wouldn't call happenstance by itself a deal breaker, if we find this is one of a multitude of universes that would explain a great deal. If we find life that can adapt to other circumstances that would change the landscape significantly.

QuoteOnly the strawman form is an extraordinary claim, and I agree. However, the non-strawman form of the claim is not extraordinary. If the universe just exists (which it would have to if there's no time external to it, God or no God), then there's no need to ask how or why it was created because it wasn't.

There are a lot of problems that can be solved by simply imagining and accepting a condition that solves it and just so happens to comport with your philosophical beliefs. How sweet.







Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

QuotePhysical laws only apply to things in the universe, not the universe as an entire object.

You continue to state things as fact yet I don't see how you could possibly know. How do you know what applies or doesn't to the universe as a whole? Do any set of laws apply to the universe as a whole? When did this knowledge come about?

QuoteBut speculating about how, or indeed if, the universe as an entire object was created is pure speculation

You must have the uncanny ability to ignore any and all evidence against your position. Big bang is still the dominant cosmological theory of how the universe came into existence roughly 14 billion years ago and there's a good reason for it. Several key predictions of the theory have been confirmed. It might not be the whole story but hardly speculative.

QuoteAlso, while Discover is a good magazine for popular science, it is hardly a peer review journal. The science of Discover is very much dumbed down.

It is science for the masses it was the first hit on a search, there were many others.

QuoteNo, dearheart, that is insisting on design. You have not connected the universe's existence to any sort of design. You have not connected the existence of stars, planets, etc. to any sort of design. You have not connected the existence of sentient beings to any sort of design.

As you are insisting some form of naturalistic causes. Of course they are connected. The only life we know of depends on planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, gravity (in an extremely narrow range) and a host of other conditions mentioned by Martin Rees.

QuoteNowhere have I said that abiogenesis is "all wrapped up." It does however sound like scientists have a good handle on what's going on and the the missing pieces are being rapidly filled, just as I said. See, you cannot propose an RNA world or "metabolism-first" approaches without having some idea what the chemistry was like on early Earth, or without some idea how chemistry would operate to create life in those proto-organisms.

You made an unequivocal statement that life would occur where ever there are favorable conditions as if you knew what those conditions were. I think you have a difficult time distinguishing between opinion, fact, theory, hypothesis or hyperbole.

 



Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

fencerider

Ananta Shesha you said that God the beginning of the universe was an infinite, formless, unified state of matter. So when this cavitation occurs how can there be more than one bubble. Or are you saying that cavitation can cause an infinite number of standing waves? I'm tryin to put your definition of god, and your super cavitation and multiverse altogether. I haven't ever heard your definition of god or this particular model of the universe before.
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2017, 08:13:14 PM
Mine was tongue in cheek as well--but with a bit more bite.  In other words, your god is simply an uncaring and unthinking creator.  It just creates for the hell of it.  If so, then what is the difference of creation by this god or by no god at all--just 'nature'???

BTW, I'm not 'mad at' your god.  I'm not mad at any god.  They are all equal in that they are each and every one of them, a fiction.  But I am 'mad at' each and every hierarchy that supports each religion.

Nature is, it doesn't create.  Creation requires agency, nature does not.  Materialism specifically denies agency ... though other forms of naturalism (vitalism) do not.  Personally I agree that G-d is uncaring ... except for that small corner of the pantheist G-d that is human ... some of us care.  Or are you uncaring too?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on April 21, 2017, 06:50:16 AM
Nature is, it doesn't create.  Creation requires agency, nature does not.  Materialism specifically denies agency ... though other forms of naturalism (vitalism) do not.  Personally I agree that G-d is uncaring ... except for that small corner of the pantheist G-d that is human ... some of us care.  Or are you uncaring too?
Why does creation require agency?  Does it say that in your bible????
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?