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

[Charlemagne]

But we now know that the universe did not always exist, so it could not have caused itself. That goes against the principle of causality. Creation and Causality are not the same thing. Creation produced a universe in which causality exists. That is, God created causality, so God is still necessary to explain universal causality (not to mention universal laws that are fine-tuned to produce us).

What we know is that the universe did not exist as it is right now, but even when physicists talk about the "nothingness" that was before it came to be, they point to a "something" of which they make simulations based on mathematical equations. In the words of physicist Lawrence Krauss:

"The simplest version of nothing might be empty space...that empty space is actually quite complicated. When we put together quantum mechanics and relativity, two of the foundations of 20th century physics, we put them together, we find out that empty space is actually a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence every second, so quickly you can't see them, in fact if you try to measure them they are not there, but they have an impact that you can actually calculate and predict, and in fact it produces the best predictions in all of physics, it explains why the atoms in your body behave the way they do and the fact of why your body has mass..."

So, there's not really a beginning of the universe, but the beginning of space and time, or what must be a phase in the existence of the universe.

But going back to our philosophical problem, you are now arguing that creation does not involve cause and effect, so there would be no effect from creation, nor there would be a cause of the things created, there is no production of the universe in whatever is meant by creation. That amounts to saying that nature, the universe has no cause external to itself. And then we are back to the same problem: if the universe has no cause external to itself, why would it need a causing agent or a creator? Having an internal systemic order with principles of causality does not demand in any way the existence of a designer, producer or creator of that order: god seems to be unnecessary. In other words, you have now taken causality out of the equation of creation to save god from being created, but by doing that, you have posited an uncaused universe.

No, I have posited a created universe.

A created universe that is not a caused universe makes absolutely no sense. In any case, you still have not showed why it is necessarily created and why necessarily created by an intelligent being. Why wouldn't it be created by a non-intelligent being?

God was neither caused nor created, but is eternal. The universe is certainly not eternal.

Why would a God be necessarily eternal? And why can't the universe be eternal?

The Big Bang tells us the universe (in which everything is causally connected) was necessarily created. But time was also created with the Big Bang. Having created time, God does not exist in time. Nor does God belong to a causal world, having created causality. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask who or what caused God to exist. Nor is it necessary to ask why the universe can't be eternal.

[Sy Borg]

Here are the choices:

1. the universe is eternal, and it changes over time

2. the universe was created by an eternal Middle Eastern deity of the Iron Age.

[3017Metaphysician]

There is no evidence for "intelligent design".

Why would there exist a designer pre-existing existence that which specifically designed human reality? It's nonsense.

However, ignoring this technicality and instead focusing on what is actually meant by "intelligent design"--that reality around us is an intelligent and purposeful blueprint...

I'll conjure up an image I've used to make a few different points:



Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

Now I wouldn't say this evidences "intelligent design", but I would say that perhaps "humans are innate and pre-encoded in time and mathematics itself".

Which is a quizzical concept in the face of evolution. Yet, somehow, I think it remains absolutely true. Humanity as we know it is a pre-destined entity.

No, not at all. There's much more evidence for intelligent design v. non-intelligent design. Think of the information narrative and the causal powers of same. You know, existential human condition quality of life stuff! Or if you prefer, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations!

Among many other quality of life, quantum phenomena thingies which only human's experience, unless one can prove say, where Singularity came from and the first species ex nihilo (conscious existence), much like the exclusivity of materialism you're more or less dead in the water! No pun intended!!

[Belindi]

As seems probable, sapient man will be wiped out quite soon, is this also the will of a sapient designer?

[EricPH]

Here are the choices:

1. the universe is eternal, and it changes over time

2. the universe was created by an eternal Middle Eastern deity of the Iron Age.

The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history. Either God created the universe and life, or there is no god, you could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the toss of a coin.

How is evolution mathematically possible without intelligent design?

For about three billion years, life existed happily without jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc. Small fish might be comprised of a trillion cells. It might take millions or billions of cells to make a jaw bone, billions of cells to make vertebrae, teeth, ribs, etc. How does blind nature randomly mutate millions or billions of cells into each of these shapes?

Symmetry is a massive problem, when you hold both hands in front of you, then you will see that two left hands would not work. You would not fit a prosthetic left hand onto the right side. Blind evolution would have to organise billions of cells into each bone, muscle, tendon, ligament, etc on the left side. Blind evolution would then have to make the right, similar, but totally different.

The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, 3.7 billion years ago. What tools did evolution have 3.7 billion years ago? How is this mathematically possible without intelligent design?

[EricPH]

As seems probable, sapient man will be wiped out quite soon, is this also the will of a sapient designer?

Every generation before us has died. Death is not a problem for God, because God can raise us to a greater good life after death.

If there is no god, we die.

[3017Metaphysician]

As seems probable, sapient man will be wiped out quite soon, is this also the will of a sapient designer?

Intriguing question Belindi! First, for those who embrace the exclusivity of determinism, does that thought process posit some ontological destiny that includes such an eradication of our species?

[Count Lucanor]

What we know is that the universe did not exist as it is right now, but even when physicists talk about the "nothingness" that was before it came to be, they point to a "something" of which they make simulations based on mathematical equations. In the words of physicist Lawrence Krauss:



So, there's not really a beginning of the universe, but the beginning of space and time, or what must be a phase in the existence of the universe.

But going back to our philosophical problem, you are now arguing that creation does not involve cause and effect, so there would be no effect from creation, nor there would be a cause of the things created, there is no production of the universe in whatever is meant by creation. That amounts to saying that nature, the universe has no cause external to itself. And then we are back to the same problem: if the universe has no cause external to itself, why would it need a causing agent or a creator? Having an internal systemic order with principles of causality does not demand in any way the existence of a designer, producer or creator of that order: god seems to be unnecessary. In other words, you have now taken causality out of the equation of creation to save god from being created, but by doing that, you have posited an uncaused universe.

No, I have posited a created universe.

A created universe that is not a caused universe makes absolutely no sense. In any case, you still have not showed why it is necessarily created and why necessarily created by an intelligent being. Why wouldn't it be created by a non-intelligent being?

God was neither caused nor created, but is eternal. The universe is certainly not eternal.

Why would a God be necessarily eternal? And why can't the universe be eternal?

The Big Bang tells us the universe (in which everything is causally connected) was necessarily created. But time was also created with the Big Bang. Having created time, God does not exist in time. Nor does God belong to a causal world, having created causality. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask who or what caused God to exist. Nor is it necessary to ask why the universe can't be eternal.

No, the Big Bang tells us our current state of the universe had a relative beginning, but not necessarily that all that exists or ever existed had an absolute beginning. In any case (relative or absolute), to have a beginning doesn't imply, by necessity, any act of creation by an intelligent being, and you have been telling us that there's no causal connection between God and the universe, since (as you argue) causality came along with (and not prior to) the universe. Everything, even with your arguments, points to no relation between the universe and God. Your hypothetical god is no less hypothetical than the Flying Teapot.

[3017Metaphysician]

No, I have posited a created universe.

A created universe that is not a caused universe makes absolutely no sense. In any case, you still have not showed why it is necessarily created and why necessarily created by an intelligent being. Why wouldn't it be created by a non-intelligent being?

God was neither caused nor created, but is eternal. The universe is certainly not eternal.

Why would a God be necessarily eternal? And why can't the universe be eternal?

The Big Bang tells us the universe (in which everything is causally connected) was necessarily created. But time was also created with the Big Bang. Having created time, God does not exist in time. Nor does God belong to a causal world, having created causality. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask who or what caused God to exist. Nor is it necessary to ask why the universe can't be eternal.

No, the Big Bang tells us our current state of the universe had a relative beginning, but not necessarily that all that exists or ever existed had an absolute beginning. In any case (relative or absolute), to have a beginning doesn't imply, by necessity, any act of creation by an intelligent being, and you have been telling us that there's no causal connection between God and the universe, since (as you argue) causality came along with (and not prior to) the universe. Everything, even with your arguments, points to no relation between the universe and God. Your hypothetical god is no less hypothetical than the Flying Teapot.

Nope. Woefully inaccurate! Give yourself credit though Countess, the only thing you got right was that the BB's only a theory. As such, the theory posits no-thing prior to existence, hence the concept of a prime mover. You know, a thingie that has a causal properties, much like the information v. matter narratives:

a Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b The universe began to exist.
c Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Notwithstanding all the quality-of-life stuff corresponding to self-directed, self-organized biological creatures (part of the information narrative), you must reconcile at least three things:

1. Does that define the concept of a God you think? You know, a final cause, a prime mover, a thing-in-itself that controls both the matter narratives and information narratives? Or does the concept relate to a thingie that has causal properties or power, kind of like your own metaphysical Will that causes you to do stuff?

2.Does this conclusion respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?

3. Is this conclusion true, false, logically necessary, or something else? If false, please feel free to explain your answers using a similar form of logico-deductive reasoning if you can!!!

[Belindi]

As seems probable, sapient man will be wiped out quite soon, is this also the will of a sapient designer?

Intriguing question Belindi! First, for those who embrace the exclusivity of determinism, does that thought process posit some ontological destiny that includes such an eradication of our species?

It's simple. I read about it in the papers.

[Charlemagne]

No, I have posited a created universe.

A created universe that is not a caused universe makes absolutely no sense. In any case, you still have not showed why it is necessarily created and why necessarily created by an intelligent being. Why wouldn't it be created by a non-intelligent being?

God was neither caused nor created, but is eternal. The universe is certainly not eternal.

Why would a God be necessarily eternal? And why can't the universe be eternal?

The Big Bang tells us the universe (in which everything is causally connected) was necessarily created. But time was also created with the Big Bang. Having created time, God does not exist in time. Nor does God belong to a causal world, having created causality. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask who or what caused God to exist. Nor is it necessary to ask why the universe can't be eternal.

No, the Big Bang tells us our current state of the universe had a relative beginning, but not necessarily that all that exists or ever existed had an absolute beginning. In any case (relative or absolute), to have a beginning doesn't imply, by necessity, any act of creation by an intelligent being, and you have been telling us that there's no causal connection between God and the universe, since (as you argue) causality came along with (and not prior to) the universe. Everything, even with your arguments, points to no relation between the universe and God. Your hypothetical god is no less hypothetical than the Flying Teapot.

Here you will find in my article that you are of a distinct minority along with Bertrand Russell.

Read it and weep.

https://catholicinsight.com/science-and-religio

[Sy Borg]

Here are the choices:

1. the universe is eternal, and it changes over time

2. the universe was created by an eternal Middle Eastern deity of the Iron Age.

The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history. Either God created the universe and life, or there is no god, you could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the toss of a coin.

No, it is not fifty-fifty. If not Yahweh, maybe it's Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus? Reality is clearly eternal (or close enough to) and God is an obvious myth.

There is zero evidence to support God or ID. Zero. None. The evolution of the eye just makes the fact that everything evolved more clear. None of what happened could have happened under creation - eyes are a fine and very clear example of convergent evolution. This happens all the time, that unrelated species develop similar abilities, because it's efficacious and .... survival of the fittest (not the most devout).

Each word you write makes it ever more clear that God is a fantasy used to personify nature, a notion that people cling to for emotional, not intellectual, reasons. In the last century there's been countless examples of evidence for evolution and exactly none to support creationism. That's why you still refuse to make your claims to evolutionary biologists - as has been suggested to you many times - which demonstrated that you have no interest in (and thus no understanding of) the subject, and only seek to prop up your flaccid arguments, all of which have been dealt with many years ago.

Still, what does evidence matter to theists? It's horrifying that 21st century humans would still believe in obviously absurd notions like deities. The madness of it all is right up there with flat-Earthism, Moon landing denial and claims of alien abductions. Surely there's sensible way to believe in your deity without trying to unwind centuries of research? Some theists manage it; they respect the science but posit their deity to fill in the gaps.

[Belindi]

As seems probable, sapient man will be wiped out quite soon, is this also the will of a sapient designer?

Every generation before us has died. Death is not a problem for God, because God can raise us to a greater good life after death.

If there is no god, we die.

Will your personality survive your death, or will there be no Eric as you knew yourself to be?

[Count Lucanor]

A created universe that is not a caused universe makes absolutely no sense. In any case, you still have not showed why it is necessarily created and why necessarily created by an intelligent being. Why wouldn't it be created by a non-intelligent being?

Why would a God be necessarily eternal? And why can't the universe be eternal?

The Big Bang tells us the universe (in which everything is causally connected) was necessarily created. But time was also created with the Big Bang. Having created time, God does not exist in time. Nor does God belong to a causal world, having created causality. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask who or what caused God to exist. Nor is it necessary to ask why the universe can't be eternal.

No, the Big Bang tells us our current state of the universe had a relative beginning, but not necessarily that all that exists or ever existed had an absolute beginning. In any case (relative or absolute), to have a beginning doesn't imply, by necessity, any act of creation by an intelligent being, and you have been telling us that there's no causal connection between God and the universe, since (as you argue) causality came along with (and not prior to) the universe. Everything, even with your arguments, points to no relation between the universe and God. Your hypothetical god is no less hypothetical than the Flying Teapot.

Here you will find in my article that you are of a distinct minority along with Bertrand Russell.

Read it and weep.

https://catholicinsight.com/science-and-religio

So, after losing the argument you resort to "many people side with me in believing there's a god". A good old fallacy.

I don't discuss faith, do you have anything else?

[Charlemagne]

The Big Bang tells us the universe (in which everything is causally connected) was necessarily created. But time was also created with the Big Bang. Having created time, God does not exist in time. Nor does God belong to a causal world, having created causality. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask who or what caused God to exist. Nor is it necessary to ask why the universe can't be eternal.

No, the Big Bang tells us our current state of the universe had a relative beginning, but not necessarily that all that exists or ever existed had an absolute beginning. In any case (relative or absolute), to have a beginning doesn't imply, by necessity, any act of creation by an intelligent being, and you have been telling us that there's no causal connection between God and the universe, since (as you argue) causality came along with (and not prior to) the universe. Everything, even with your arguments, points to no relation between the universe and God. Your hypothetical god is no less hypothetical than the Flying Teapot.

Here you will find in my article that you are of a distinct minority along with Bertrand Russell.

Read it and weep.

https://catholicinsight.com/science-and-religio

So, after losing the argument you resort to "many people side with me in believing there's a god". A good old fallacy.

I don't discuss faith, do you have anything else?

If you're too lazy to read my article, I have nothing else.

The real fallacy is that you ignore the evidence supplied by so many great men of science.

So many great men could be wrong, but you will never know that by ignoring their testimony.