Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

I see no reason to twist and bend scientific ideas to fit the mythology of the Iron Age in the Middle East. There are many other mythologies one could draw from. Why not those?

I note #3: "Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing".

In physicist, Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he posits that what we assume to have been "nothingness" before the big bang was not truly nothingness. That is, the universe was replete with virtual particles, basically particles that pop in and out of existence immediately. It is posited that, under certain conditions, one of these virtual particles kept expanding instead of disappearing.

There is no need for a deity imagined by ancient Abrahamics any more than Hinduism's multiple gods. These are not real entities but representations of qualities either noticed or imagined by ancient people.

Who knows? Maybe the god of the universe exists as per the OP? Maybe the Milky Way is a god, or a demigod? Maybe the solar system? Or Gaia. Maybe they all exist, layers of gods? However, I am yet to see convincing logical proofs for any. If God exists, it appears most likely that it would be entirely subjective.

SB!

Indeed. New theories have posited a universe with no beginning, which in turn suggests some sense of eternal time that might exist. Meaning, in layman's terms, our universe could be a spin-off 'bubble universe' from some other form of space-time.

And so with respect to causation, whether it is BB or an ever expanding 'model of eternity', one is still primarily left with choices of logical necessity or infinite regress. And as mentioned in part from the OP, the A-theist has to reconcile the paradox of his general belief (system) in pure reason (a super-turtle/God) as a logically necessary cause, or somehow prove that the universe has an infinite series of causes (and explain the nature of those causes) within the confines of rational explanation including biological life forms, consciousness and the like. If it's the latter, then the 'logic paradox' rears its head, on many levels.

I suppose there is always a third option, but that generally involves arbitrariness and/or complete chaos, which would also be problematic since the universe is particularly (somehow) fine-tuned for its existence, particularly viz biological life forms. And apparently one little miss-step along the way would have precluded the development of same.

And so, philosophically, what are you thinking, is logical necessity, necessary?

The infinite regress problem is not prevented by theistic belief; that just pushes the regress back one step. If everything stops at God, why not stop at the cosmic foam (pre BB state) or dark energy?

Complete chaos works when coupled with the anthropic principle. If the universe was not capable of producing life, then there would be no life to ask the question. Further, I do not think the universe is fine tuned for life. It seems rather more fine-tuned for vast voids, giant gas clouds and concentrations of plasma. Scientists have not yet found more efficacious combinations of the constants of nature, but that does not discount the possibility of universes being more conducive to life than this one.

Further, when we consider the fine tuning problem, I note that our bodies seem fine tuned to do what they do too. So the universe may be a living system in ways we don't yet understand. Even if it a kind of giant organism, would that make it God? Most organisms aren't that bright.

Obviously, I don't know the answer, but I think we can do better in trying to understand reality than attributing all to a Middle Eastern Iron Age deity that had been foisted upon us in the west by Constantine's hallucinations.

SB!

To take one question at a time, the reason it 'stops at God' because the ontological & cosmological argument says it does. Correct?

[Sy Borg]

I see no reason to twist and bend scientific ideas to fit the mythology of the Iron Age in the Middle East. There are many other mythologies one could draw from. Why not those?

I note #3: "Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing".

In physicist, Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he posits that what we assume to have been "nothingness" before the big bang was not truly nothingness. That is, the universe was replete with virtual particles, basically particles that pop in and out of existence immediately. It is posited that, under certain conditions, one of these virtual particles kept expanding instead of disappearing.

There is no need for a deity imagined by ancient Abrahamics any more than Hinduism's multiple gods. These are not real entities but representations of qualities either noticed or imagined by ancient people.

Who knows? Maybe the god of the universe exists as per the OP? Maybe the Milky Way is a god, or a demigod? Maybe the solar system? Or Gaia. Maybe they all exist, layers of gods? However, I am yet to see convincing logical proofs for any. If God exists, it appears most likely that it would be entirely subjective.

SB!

Indeed. New theories have posited a universe with no beginning, which in turn suggests some sense of eternal time that might exist. Meaning, in layman's terms, our universe could be a spin-off 'bubble universe' from some other form of space-time.

And so with respect to causation, whether it is BB or an ever expanding 'model of eternity', one is still primarily left with choices of logical necessity or infinite regress. And as mentioned in part from the OP, the A-theist has to reconcile the paradox of his general belief (system) in pure reason (a super-turtle/God) as a logically necessary cause, or somehow prove that the universe has an infinite series of causes (and explain the nature of those causes) within the confines of rational explanation including biological life forms, consciousness and the like. If it's the latter, then the 'logic paradox' rears its head, on many levels.

I suppose there is always a third option, but that generally involves arbitrariness and/or complete chaos, which would also be problematic since the universe is particularly (somehow) fine-tuned for its existence, particularly viz biological life forms. And apparently one little miss-step along the way would have precluded the development of same.

And so, philosophically, what are you thinking, is logical necessity, necessary?

The infinite regress problem is not prevented by theistic belief; that just pushes the regress back one step. If everything stops at God, why not stop at the cosmic foam (pre BB state) or dark energy?

Complete chaos works when coupled with the anthropic principle. If the universe was not capable of producing life, then there would be no life to ask the question. Further, I do not think the universe is fine tuned for life. It seems rather more fine-tuned for vast voids, giant gas clouds and concentrations of plasma. Scientists have not yet found more efficacious combinations of the constants of nature, but that does not discount the possibility of universes being more conducive to life than this one.

Further, when we consider the fine tuning problem, I note that our bodies seem fine tuned to do what they do too. So the universe may be a living system in ways we don't yet understand. Even if it a kind of giant organism, would that make it God? Most organisms aren't that bright.

Obviously, I don't know the answer, but I think we can do better in trying to understand reality than attributing all to a Middle Eastern Iron Age deity that had been foisted upon us in the west by Constantine's hallucinations.

SB!

To take one question at a time, the reason it 'stops at God' because the ontological & cosmological argument says it does. Correct?

3017, the ontological argument makes no sense at this stage. The only evidence found so far is for the "turtles" to stop at the universe. You might as well say that a giant rubber duck preceded the BB. Try to prove it's not true.

There is no evidence at all suggesting that God is an objective phenomenon. There's much anecdotal evidence, however, that God is a subjective phenomenon, so I don't see why theists have to keep trying to give God extra functions. Given that our entire existence is ultimately subjective, one would think that having God reside within is enough, without the unfounded extrapolations.

[PoeticUniverse]

is the notion of a necessary Being absurd? And, if it's absurd, why?

Absurd!

The notion of ‘God’ implies a Fundamental Person-Being with a system of Brain and Mind who can think, plan, design, create, and implement a universe with life on Earth, along with whatever else there needs to be to constitute a Person, perhaps along with an Emotional System for love and caring.

You cannot have this ‘God’ as Fundamental because:

Its system would have to have parts that precede it that would have be even more Fundamental. Highly evolved aliens don’t count.

Appeals to ‘super’, ‘magic’ or ‘infinite’ not only don’t help because they make the larger system even less Fundamental, but also because they are ‘just said’ to be to a ‘special’ realm.

Supposed distinct realms from the physical realm would just roll along independently on their own due to their distinctness, unable to interact with our distinct realm of the physical.

Quantum Field Theory is already the most successful in all of science and its quantum field would be the Eternal Existent as partless and thus truly Fundamental.

Existence has no alternative, given that nonexistence has no being as a source and that there is indeed something, and as such the existence of something is mandatory, there not being any choice, option, or alternative to it. It’s a given; no magic is required; ‘God’ is not required.

We see simpler entities in the past, these having led to the composites and to the great complexities of the present. Turn around and look to the right direction of the future for higher modes of being to become. Now it’s right in front of your nose.

The universe and life is full of non-intelligent design. See Dawkins.

Cosmic and biological evolution went so slowly and took so long because this is exactly how nature alone would do it.

Great near extinctions continue to wipe out life; we may be going into one now. Life on Earth was always precarious.

There was no ‘Divine Inspiration’ to the Bible’s books of Genesis because they are the polar opposite in their Creationism lack of Cosmic evolution and lack of biological evolution in the instant production of Man, plus more wrongs.

Life didn’t come from a Higher Life but from lessor life; thus that supposed golden template of infinite regress can be thrown out of the window onto the trash heap.

Faith doesn’t grant its wishes but leaves them only as hopes. Enjoy the comfort of the fantasy fairy-tale and ignore its shortcoming and paradoxes unveiled.

‘God’ hasn’t been established. It would be too generous to even give it a ‘maybe’. Preachers who wish to retain their flocks have to dishonestly state ‘God’ as if it’s true. They wouldn’t even say ‘perhaps’. It turned into Carl Sagan’s “demon haunted world”.

The Church as a source got many things wrong that we all know about, such as evil spirits causing physical ills and even sins as mental ills, and more that those like Galileo showed.

‘God’s invention of Man as intended and his reinvention via Noah failed, the paradox being that ‘God’ threw Man out of Eden and will destroy Man as in the Book of Revelation, this man-made ‘God’ not even able to take responsibility for his own design going astray. So it is that we can out think this silly ‘God’ that most believe in who is mean.

QFT and the will as the brain have all been explained in my threads, and so can gravity be explained even beyond Einstein’s high level, at the quantum level, too.

The Big Bang banged from something that could not be ‘Nothing’ and that would be the QFT fluctuations. Plus, there’s no reason why there couldn’t have been other Bangs, given the one here, in the QFT multiverse, some good enough to provide for some kind of life.

See my other threads for more about the Earth’s and the universe’s going on.

Aside from the trivial definition of ‘free will’ being that without coercion the will is free to operate, and the useless definition of the harmful random will equaling ‘freedom’, the deeper notion of ‘free’ as being original and free of the brain’s will is of a currency never being able to be stated and cashed in on, leaving ‘determined’ to continue to be the opposite of ‘undetermined’. Our fixed will means no ‘God’ granting freedom. Our successive and hopefully better fixed wills from learning and experiences wvwr have to do as they have become up to the time of usage.

The Theity idea is dead, yet it might be still thought that a Deity idea instead cannot be touched as an aloof Great Scientist who just set the universe in motion at the Big Bang after foreseeing it all, although it came out the same as nature would do, but the supposed Deity can be gotten rid of because a complexity cannot be First and Fundamental. It doesn’t help to then declare it to be infinite, for that only makes the problem of begging the question infinitely worse.

Nor is the universe’s life here on Earth free of the barbaric qualities that only evolution could have brought forth. The Deity falls. RIP. ‘God’ added nothing; it is just an unnecessary step trying to gain meaning and purpose that would only turn out to be restrictive. Look for better scientists and higher modes of being in the more complex future, not in the simplistic past. Turn completely around from the polar opposite religious viewpoint that couldn’t even be more wrong. The universe’s doing are purely natural and physical. It doesn’t operate as ‘God’-like. See my threads.

Diversional type responses won’t be attended to.

[3017Metaphysician]

is the notion of a necessary Being absurd? And, if it's absurd, why?

Absurd!

The notion of ‘God’ implies a Fundamental Person-Being with a system of Brain and Mind who can think, plan, design, create, and implement a universe with life on Earth, along with whatever else there needs to be to constitute a Person, perhaps along with an Emotional System for love and caring.

You cannot have this ‘God’ as Fundamental because:

Its system would have to have parts that precede it that would have be even more Fundamental. Highly evolved aliens don’t count.

Appeals to ‘super’, ‘magic’ or ‘infinite’ not only don’t help because they make the larger system even less Fundamental, but also because they are ‘just said’ to be to a ‘special’ realm.

Supposed distinct realms from the physical realm would just roll along independently on their own due to their distinctness, unable to interact with our distinct realm of the physical.

Quantum Field Theory is already the most successful in all of science and its quantum field would be the Eternal Existent as partless and thus truly Fundamental.

Existence has no alternative, given that nonexistence has no being as a source and that there is indeed something, and as such the existence of something is mandatory, there not being any choice, option, or alternative to it. It’s a given; no magic is required; ‘God’ is not required.

We see simpler entities in the past, these having led to the composites and to the great complexities of the present. Turn around and look to the right direction of the future for higher modes of being to become. Now it’s right in front of your nose.

The universe and life is full of non-intelligent design. See Dawkins.

Cosmic and biological evolution went so slowly and took so long because this is exactly how nature alone would do it.

Great near extinctions continue to wipe out life; we may be going into one now. Life on Earth was always precarious.

There was no ‘Divine Inspiration’ to the Bible’s books of Genesis because they are the polar opposite in their Creationism lack of Cosmic evolution and lack of biological evolution in the instant production of Man, plus more wrongs.

Life didn’t come from a Higher Life but from lessor life; thus that supposed golden template of infinite regress can be thrown out of the window onto the trash heap.

Faith doesn’t grant its wishes but leaves them only as hopes. Enjoy the comfort of the fantasy fairy-tale and ignore its shortcoming and paradoxes unveiled.

‘God’ hasn’t been established. It would be too generous to even give it a ‘maybe’. Preachers who wish to retain their flocks have to dishonestly state ‘God’ as if it’s true. They wouldn’t even say ‘perhaps’. It turned into Carl Sagan’s “demon haunted world”.

The Church as a source got many things wrong that we all know about, such as evil spirits causing physical ills and even sins as mental ills, and more that those like Galileo showed.

‘God’s invention of Man as intended and his reinvention via Noah failed, the paradox being that ‘God’ threw Man out of Eden and will destroy Man as in the Book of Revelation, this man-made ‘God’ not even able to take responsibility for his own design going astray. So it is that we can out think this silly ‘God’ that most believe in who is mean.

QFT and the will as the brain have all been explained in my threads, and so can gravity be explained even beyond Einstein’s high level, at the quantum level, too.

The Big Bang banged from something that could not be ‘Nothing’ and that would be the QFT fluctuations. Plus, there’s no reason why there couldn’t have been other Bangs, given the one here, in the QFT multiverse, some good enough to provide for some kind of life.

See my other threads for more about the Earth’s and the universe’s going on.

Aside from the trivial definition of ‘free will’ being that without coercion the will is free to operate, and the useless definition of the harmful random will equaling ‘freedom’, the deeper notion of ‘free’ as being original and free of the brain’s will is of a currency never being able to be stated and cashed in on, leaving ‘determined’ to continue to be the opposite of ‘undetermined’. Our fixed will means no ‘God’ granting freedom. Our successive and hopefully better fixed wills from learning and experiences wvwr have to do as they have become up to the time of usage.

The Theity idea is dead, yet it might be still thought that a Deity idea instead cannot be touched as an aloof Great Scientist who just set the universe in motion at the Big Bang after foreseeing it all, although it came out the same as nature would do, but the supposed Deity can be gotten rid of because a complexity cannot be First and Fundamental. It doesn’t help to then declare it to be infinite, for that only makes the problem of begging the question infinitely worse.

Nor is the universe’s life here on Earth free of the barbaric qualities that only evolution could have brought forth. The Deity falls. RIP. ‘God’ added nothing; it is just an unnecessary step trying to gain meaning and purpose that would only turn out to be restrictive. Look for better scientists and higher modes of being in the more complex future, not in the simplistic past. Turn completely around from the polar opposite religious viewpoint that couldn’t even be more wrong. The universe’s doing are purely natural and physical. It doesn’t operate as ‘God’-like. See my threads.

Diversional type responses won’t be attended to.

P-AH-U!

Nice! You went on to explain some notion of "Fundamental" and various other things which I'm thinking requires further consideration. But let's unpack one supposition at a time before we get into that deconstruction.

You said in the first paragraph:
The notion of ‘God’ implies a Fundamental Person-Being with a system of Brain and Mind who can think, plan, design, create, and implement a universe with life on Earth, along with whatever else there needs to be to constitute a Person, perhaps along with an Emotional System for love and caring.


When you say 'the notion of God' you have linked it with ontology. That's consistent with 'consciousness', which is why I included in my OP. Though we may want to consider a material view of 'God' (Pantheism, etc.) I would not take any exception to a type of Spinozian concept of God that may/may not be part of your "Fundamental" theory. But, since the concept of God can be both metaphysical (consciousness) and physical (nature) we can maybe include that in your response at a later time... .

Question/concerns on the first paragraph that relate to a creator, a creation 'event' (BB), ontology, and another possibility:

1. If that's what one conception of God is; a sentient/biological creature that has the ability to create something from nothing, yet our current models/theories/explanations of mind and matter transcend human understanding, should we be okay to embrace absurdity? Also, here are some concerns/questions that have lead to that/ my question:

a. If the BB is 'absolute' (there are other theories just as viable) then a creation event must occur because it implies there was nothing prior (no space-time, no nothing).
b. If the BB is 'absolute' then one must account for how/where the Singularity came from.
c. If the BB is 'absolute', then it implies a super-turtle who transcends not only human logic and reason, but the current mathematical explanation that are used to posit the theory to begin with cannot account for everything (ToE)?
d. If the BB is 'absolute', and in light of an ontological God, one has to wonder what God was doing prior to the creation event. For instance, does God exist outside of time to create time/change itself (temporal time verse eternal time).
e. If the BB is not 'absolute', one could also look at an ever expanding universe which implies we are just a bubble universe/spin-off. This also implies a sense of eternity that somehow has to exist.
f. In any case, an 'ontological creature' that exists (the ontological argument/mathematical genius/super-turtle) that implies 'conscious existence', self-awareness, intellect and sentience, and would logically make sense from a purely analytical analysis.
g.Since Darwinisim does not account for 'the first one', only survival of an ensemble of already existing biological life forms, what would it mean if one were to posit that logically necessary truths (the ontological argument) exist? Hence:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time


So PU, from your first paragraph, we must think about how, what, why and when did biological life forms emerge (i.e., Anthropic Principle). Even Stephen Hawking seems concerned? And, we must also consider the concept of 'purpose', which is of course one reason why you've even responded to the OP. Otherwise, your 'alternative' notion of "Fundamental" would provide for no escape from your conclusion of 'absurdity'. In other words, your concept of "Fundamental" comes with no theory for emergence of biological existence. Consciousness exists, but we don't know how or why or for what purpose it exists. QFT is meaningless (?). And, since consciousness operates from logical impossibility, should we just assume its logically necessary? Is that absurd too? (I'll be happy to explain that one to you if you don't get it.) Or if we want a deeper meaning, should we just stop and embrace your absurdity? I'm okay with that, as long as you can admit your theory is no escape from same. What say you?

Anyway, just some more things to think about. All is absurd! As it should be

[3017Metaphysician]

SB!

Indeed. New theories have posited a universe with no beginning, which in turn suggests some sense of eternal time that might exist. Meaning, in layman's terms, our universe could be a spin-off 'bubble universe' from some other form of space-time.

And so with respect to causation, whether it is BB or an ever expanding 'model of eternity', one is still primarily left with choices of logical necessity or infinite regress. And as mentioned in part from the OP, the A-theist has to reconcile the paradox of his general belief (system) in pure reason (a super-turtle/God) as a logically necessary cause, or somehow prove that the universe has an infinite series of causes (and explain the nature of those causes) within the confines of rational explanation including biological life forms, consciousness and the like. If it's the latter, then the 'logic paradox' rears its head, on many levels.

I suppose there is always a third option, but that generally involves arbitrariness and/or complete chaos, which would also be problematic since the universe is particularly (somehow) fine-tuned for its existence, particularly viz biological life forms. And apparently one little miss-step along the way would have precluded the development of same.

And so, philosophically, what are you thinking, is logical necessity, necessary?

The infinite regress problem is not prevented by theistic belief; that just pushes the regress back one step. If everything stops at God, why not stop at the cosmic foam (pre BB state) or dark energy?

Complete chaos works when coupled with the anthropic principle. If the universe was not capable of producing life, then there would be no life to ask the question. Further, I do not think the universe is fine tuned for life. It seems rather more fine-tuned for vast voids, giant gas clouds and concentrations of plasma. Scientists have not yet found more efficacious combinations of the constants of nature, but that does not discount the possibility of universes being more conducive to life than this one.

Further, when we consider the fine tuning problem, I note that our bodies seem fine tuned to do what they do too. So the universe may be a living system in ways we don't yet understand. Even if it a kind of giant organism, would that make it God? Most organisms aren't that bright.

Obviously, I don't know the answer, but I think we can do better in trying to understand reality than attributing all to a Middle Eastern Iron Age deity that had been foisted upon us in the west by Constantine's hallucinations.

SB!

To take one question at a time, the reason it 'stops at God' because the ontological & cosmological argument says it does. Correct?

3017, the ontological argument makes no sense at this stage. The only evidence found so far is for the "turtles" to stop at the universe. You might as well say that a giant rubber duck preceded the BB. Try to prove it's not true.

There is no evidence at all suggesting that God is an objective phenomenon. There's much anecdotal evidence, however, that God is a subjective phenomenon, so I don't see why theists have to keep trying to give God extra functions. Given that our entire existence is ultimately subjective, one would think that having God reside within is enough, without the unfounded extrapolations.

SB!

Thanks for your thoughts there. What do you mean that it makes no sense? You know, it (the ontological/cosmological argument) is based upon mathematical truths (a priori analytical analysis) about a universal accepted concept of God? I don't mean to sound so 'succinct', but that's the jist of the argument, or at least that's what is behind the logic of it. In other words, its conclusion is like mathematic's.

Too, I'm also thinking the rubber duck analogy would not be the appropriate analogy. That's because the concept of a 'rubber duck' does not include consciousness and the like. Maybe you mean to say 'super-human' or an 'absurd-human' or an 'illogical-human' or even 'finite human' but am not sure... .

Anyway, I can certainly appreciate your notion of subjectivity/objectivity because I've enjoyed studying that at great length-awhile back. Thank you. First, are you suggesting objective truths, like mathematical truths that describe the universe, are irrelevant to this analogy? Too, if mathematical truths are metaphysically abstract by their nature, are we faced with yet another paradox relative to figuring out objectivity associated with physical existence with life in it? In other words, isn't causation itself, logical?

Assuming the answers are no and yes/yes respectfully, should we conclude (I know this is a big leap from just one simple analogy) that all is Subjectivity? (But that might suggest 'Subjective Idealism', which would not square with, say, an Atheist's belief system... .)

Being a big fan of SK, of course I embrace the notion of subjective truths, but if there are no objective truths, what are the implications?

Just as I'm sure you're aware, there are all sorts of contradictions within those simple questions, but because perceiving 'reality' is such a perplexing subject (the nature of), I suppose parsing the differences between Subjectivity/Objectivity is as good a place as any, to start.

[Belindi]

Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.

[3017Metaphysician]

Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!

[PoeticUniverse]

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

It was no bother, for an Eternal Existent had to be since there's no alternative. The Big Bang came from it, for something had to bang to make a bang.

Anyway, just some more things to think about. All is absurd! As it should be

Yes, in any case, all is absurd, and it shows, as it should. There are a zillion big balls of fire all over the universe and a lot of hydrogen in-between… and Trump, as the most absurd of all.

[3017Metaphysician]

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

It was no bother, for an Eternal Existent had to be since there's no alternative. The Big Bang came from it, for something had to bang to make a bang.

Anyway, just some more things to think about. All is absurd! As it should be

Yes, in any case, all is absurd, and it shows, as it should. There are a zillion big balls of fire all over the universe and a lot of hydrogen in-between… and Trump, as the most absurd of all.

PU!

LOL! With respect to the latter, no exceptions taken!!! Yeah, I think in this case there is more to just 'hot air' than what meets the eye, or nose.

It may be an indicator of some other toxic pathology, like narcissism...

[Belindi]

Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!

Actually I was hoping these questions may help to solidify your quest for knowledge and wisdom.If indeed you are on that quest.

[Sy Borg]

The infinite regress problem is not prevented by theistic belief; that just pushes the regress back one step. If everything stops at God, why not stop at the cosmic foam (pre BB state) or dark energy?

Complete chaos works when coupled with the anthropic principle. If the universe was not capable of producing life, then there would be no life to ask the question. Further, I do not think the universe is fine tuned for life. It seems rather more fine-tuned for vast voids, giant gas clouds and concentrations of plasma. Scientists have not yet found more efficacious combinations of the constants of nature, but that does not discount the possibility of universes being more conducive to life than this one.

Further, when we consider the fine tuning problem, I note that our bodies seem fine tuned to do what they do too. So the universe may be a living system in ways we don't yet understand. Even if it a kind of giant organism, would that make it God? Most organisms aren't that bright.

Obviously, I don't know the answer, but I think we can do better in trying to understand reality than attributing all to a Middle Eastern Iron Age deity that had been foisted upon us in the west by Constantine's hallucinations.

SB!

To take one question at a time, the reason it 'stops at God' because the ontological & cosmological argument says it does. Correct?

3017, the ontological argument makes no sense at this stage. The only evidence found so far is for the "turtles" to stop at the universe. You might as well say that a giant rubber duck preceded the BB. Try to prove it's not true.

There is no evidence at all suggesting that God is an objective phenomenon. There's much anecdotal evidence, however, that God is a subjective phenomenon, so I don't see why theists have to keep trying to give God extra functions. Given that our entire existence is ultimately subjective, one would think that having God reside within is enough, without the unfounded extrapolations.

SB!

Thanks for your thoughts there. What do you mean that it makes no sense? You know, it (the ontological/cosmological argument) is based upon mathematical truths (a priori analytical analysis) about a universal accepted concept of God? I don't mean to sound so 'succinct', but that's the jist of the argument, or at least that's what is behind the logic of it. In other words, its conclusion is like mathematic's.

Too, I'm also thinking the rubber duck analogy would not be the appropriate analogy. That's because the concept of a 'rubber duck' does not include consciousness and the like. Maybe you mean to say 'super-human' or an 'absurd-human' or an 'illogical-human' or even 'finite human' but am not sure... .

Anyway, I can certainly appreciate your notion of subjectivity/objectivity because I've enjoyed studying that at great length-awhile back. Thank you. First, are you suggesting objective truths, like mathematical truths that describe the universe, are irrelevant to this analogy? Too, if mathematical truths are metaphysically abstract by their nature, are we faced with yet another paradox relative to figuring out objectivity associated with physical existence with life in it? In other words, isn't causation itself, logical?

Assuming the answers are no and yes/yes respectfully, should we conclude (I know this is a big leap from just one simple analogy) that all is Subjectivity? (But that might suggest 'Subjective Idealism', which would not square with, say, an Atheist's belief system... .)

Being a big fan of SK, of course I embrace the notion of subjective truths, but if there are no objective truths, what are the implications?

Just as I'm sure you're aware, there are all sorts of contradictions within those simple questions, but because perceiving 'reality' is such a perplexing subject (the nature of), I suppose parsing the differences between Subjectivity/Objectivity is as good a place as any, to start.

To me Aselm was just one more person making guesses based on not much information. The idea that God must be real because we cannot conceive of anything greater is not logical. You might as well say God must be real because we cannot envisage anything more slippery or spiky. No eel or slug could ever be as slippery as God! No porcupine's spikes can compare with the almighty spikiness of God's peerless spines :)

It is simply imagination. Pure math demonstrates that coherent and consistent mathematical models can be determined that lack any physical correlates, unlike the models of physics. The issue to me, then, is not that objects of imagination are only real to the individual doing the imagining, rather that imagination is underestimated for its own sake. That is, imagination need not have physical equivalences to be potent. In that, I probably accord somewhat with you and Kierkegaard.

However, I think that objective truths do exist, that the existence of stars, planets and moons and other entities that preceded life are objectively true, whether they are noticed or not. The truth is always out there, with the potential of being understood, but usually it isn't. So far.

[PoeticUniverse]

You might as well say God must be real because we cannot envisage anything more slippery or spiky. No eel or slug could ever be as slippery as God! No porcupine's spikes can compare with the almighty spikiness of God's peerless spines

Good one!



The Titanic God idea heads for the iceberg of paradox.

[Sy Borg]

You might as well say God must be real because we cannot envisage anything more slippery or spiky. No eel or slug could ever be as slippery as God! No porcupine's spikes can compare with the almighty spikiness of God's peerless spines :)

Good one!

The Titanic God idea heads for the iceberg of paradox.

Ha! To be fair, it's posited that black holes may be spiky rather than huge. These would be the biggest spikes in the universe, yet they would be locally dwarfed by God's vastly greater spikes. No self-respecting deity is going to be outdone by a mere black hole.

[Tegularius]

God is not in any sense a matter of proof but probability, which in the case of god is so low as to offer virtual proof of what can't officially be proven. What we do know unconditionally is that the infinitesimal probability of god existing has never once been enlarged by the least addition of evidence in the entire saga of human history. To acknowledge what is obvious does not require an atheistic stance but merely one which is realistic. In that sense, atheism reigns as the default conclusion which only yields to the acceptance of god(s) as myth. As the word implies, it has less to do with any direct negation of god than with the claims of theism institutionalizing them.

[3017Metaphysician]

Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!

Actually I was hoping these questions may help to solidify your quest for knowledge and wisdom.If indeed you are on that quest.

Sure. Let's see how many Atheist's step up to the plate (and answer your question). Then perhaps then there will be an SK decisive moment of enlightenment.