How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #180

Newton scientifically described gravity and set rules before we even knew what it was. What would you think of someone who denied gravity because we couldn't say how it worked?

Keep in mind----I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm just trying to take its implications to their logical conclusion.

enough of a Nothing that no creator is needed

You keep repeating this as if trying to get it accepted as a given without having to justify it.

even if there is as yet no explanation of the mechanics that might be involved.

If we're already at Nothing, how much further is there to look?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #180

Newton scientifically described gravity and set rules before we even knew what it was. What would you think of someone who denied gravity because we couldn't say how it worked?

Keep in mind----I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm just trying to take its implications to their logical conclusion.

enough of a Nothing that no creator is needed

You keep repeating this as if trying to get it accepted as a given without having to justify it.

even if there is as yet no explanation of the mechanics that might be involved.

If we're already at Nothing, how much further is there to look?

No further. But even with talks of 'before anything, no Time', I still wonder when did 'nothing' produce Something? Did the Cosmos begin immediately? It almost sounds like infinite regression problem again.

Sure, still I have doubts and questions about it all, but 'god' is no longer a credible answer (if it ever was). It seems a bit pointless to talk of 'Logical Conclusions' where it all seems counter - intuitive, and i can only say that Logically, a creative Cosmic Mind just creates two problems where something from nothing is just one. And Krauss says he has an answer.

So I keep saying, you say. For me it hasn't been the best option for a while, even if it is for others. But you posted the Krauss clip where he said it, and he made the case, not me. As seems to be the case all the time, neither of us is going to persuade the other, so it's making the case to anyone looking in. But for me, that Krauss clip just firmed up that Something from Nothing was not only an alternate claim foe a 'god' or creative Cosmic Mind, but looks like the claim, if not actually an hypothesis, better supported by reason and evidence.'God'is really only a stopgap claim because there is no other halfway feasible suggestion, and that will no longer pass.

[elphidium55]

...
You don't!

[otseng]

...
You don't!

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the Thank button. For anything else use PM.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #182

Logically, a creative Cosmic Mind just creates two problems where something from nothing is just one. And Krauss says he has an answer.

It seems to me that something from nothing is enough of a problem to make a cosmic mind at least a bit more plausible, and certainly enough to blur the line between the material and the mystical (I think it's fair to say at least that it's enough to call strict materialism into question).

And let's look at another facet of Krauss' answer. He likes to add the positive and negative energy of the universe together, get zero as a sum and posit this as evidence that the universe comes from nothing because it has "zero" energy now. As logically problematic as that is, let's say for the sake of argument that it is the case. From there a philosopher might raise the annoying question of what the universe is made of if it has no energy.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #182

Logically, a creative Cosmic Mind just creates two problems where something from nothing is just one. And Krauss says he has an answer.

It seems to me that something from nothing is enough of a problem to make a cosmic mind at least a bit more plausible, and certainly enough to blur the line between the material and the mystical.

And let's look at another facet of Krauss' answer. He likes to add the positive and negative energy of the universe together, get zero as a sum and posit this as evidence that the universe comes from nothing because it has "zero" energy now. As logically problematic as that is, let's say for the sake of argument that it is the case. From there a philosopher might raise the annoying question of what the universe is made of if it has no energy.

Esentially dismissive and gets you nowhere. Nobody knows, and maybe we will never know. But as a sorta common sense logic position, one problem - a creative force vs. 2 problems, 'a creative force and it is intelligent', means that 'god' is the less likely option.

As to you thinking you know better than Krauss,..I'll leave it to you. I'll just say that you are wearing out your fingers to no purpose trying to force God (repeating the 'something from nothing mantra and dismissing anything like evidence for it) as a placeholder for 'we don't know'. I don't even really care because it is not related to a particular religion (which is a totally different argument) so it's all academic anyway. I'm just a bit diverted at the ways you keep trying (like a theist trying to force NDE's to be evidence for God) to turn an unknown into evidence.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #186

Esentially dismissive and gets you nowhere. Nobody knows, and maybe we will never know. But as a sorta common sense logic position, one problem - a creative force vs. 2 problems, 'a creative force and it is intelligent', means that 'god' is the less likely option.

I've already pointed out that in getting something out of nothing without physics a paraphysical cause would multiply agency by necessity and not beyond necessity, and I would further argue it plausible that some manner of consciousness intrinsic to nature could be inferred.

As to you thinking you know better than Krauss,..I'll leave it to you.

I don't see what disqualifies me from bringing up a probing question about what Krauss posits. After all, Einstein himself exhorted us to "never stop questioning" and science doesn't give us answers which can't be questioned.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #186

Esentially dismissive and gets you nowhere. Nobody knows, and maybe we will never know. But as a sorta common sense logic position, one problem - a creative force vs. 2 problems, 'a creative force and it is intelligent', means that 'god' is the less likely option.

I've already pointed out that in getting something out of nothing without physics a paraphysical cause would multiply agency by necessity and not beyond necessity, and I would further argue it plausible that some manner of consciousness intrinsic to nature could be inferred.

As to you thinking you know better than Krauss,..I'll leave it to you.

I don't see what disqualifies me from bringing up a probing question about what Krauss posits. After all, Einstein himself exhorted us to "never stop questioning" and science doesn't give us answers which can't be questioned.

I've already pointed out to you that physics is a result of what appears through what Krauss, Hawking and others might call mathematical potential, which is inherentl in the instability of (uncreated) "Nothing". If you deny that is valid, go argue with Krauss. I'm going with the opinion of the expert, of which I am sure you are not. You are an irreligious theist clinging in terror to the last bit of God you have left and are desperately trying to shove god in there, with nothing more than word - juggling.

Fine, you do that If you want to confirm your bias by telling yourself what you want to hear, that's ok by me.

But you need better than tossing a word -salad.

I'm not even totally buying this claim myself; I have no Faith to fight for. My beef is with the religion not a possible cosmic mind. It is rather you who denies questioning; you rather insist on a conclusion (the sorta -god U like) and juggling terms and concepts and even supposing you know better than Krauss, in order to push away and doubts and questions.

I say again and I'm not trying to rob you, but help you. You have nothing to lose but your mental chains by accepting that an origin to Everything or even the existence of everything however it was, might not need a cosmic creative intelligence with no explained origin to see it done. You don't need to cling to this as a Faith, even if you entertain it (as I do) as a possibility.

22 here That's better. earlier on there was nobody and I wondered what I'd said

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #188

I've already pointed out to you that physics is a result of what appears through what Krauss, Hawking and others might call mathematical potential, which is inherentl in the instability of (uncreated) "Nothing".

And I've tried to point out that if immaterial mathematics has some creative power, then there's something intriguingly transcendental about mathematics. And even then you have to put "Nothing" in quotation marks to distinguish it from the real Nothing of the void which logically underlies everything filling it.

BTW----Have you noticed all the extra ingredients Krauss has to throw into the void to get instability? He has to "apply" quantum mechanics, "apply" gravity, "apply" relativity....If he's applying all of those laws and forces to Nothing [not "Nothing"], where is he getting all of those laws and forces to apply to Nothing to get the instability that activates the mathematics that gives rise to the physics that lives in the house that Jack built?

You are an irreligious theist clinging in terror to the last bit of God you have left and are desperately trying to shove god in there, with nothing more than word - juggling.

How well you presume to know me! Such haymaker swipes hardly constitute a compelling response.

If you [or Krauss] can't tell me a simple thing like what the universe is made of with no energy, you're hardly in a position to accuse me of "word - juggling".

It is rather you who denies questioning; you rather insist on a conclusion (the sorta -god U like) and juggling terms and concepts and even supposing you know better than Krauss, in order to push away and doubts and questions.

Why? Because "Krauss-says-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" isn't enough for me? In the video with Colbert, the good Doctor even encourages Stephen to be skeptical. "I am," Stephen replies.

So am I.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #188

I've already pointed out to you that physics is a result of what appears through what Krauss, Hawking and others might call mathematical potential, which is inherentl in the instability of (uncreated) "Nothing".

And I've tried to point out that if immaterial mathematics has some creative power, then there's something intriguingly transcendental about mathematics. And even then you have to put "Nothing" in quotation marks to distinguish it from the real Nothing of the void which logically underlies everything filling it.

BTW----Have you noticed all the extra ingredients Krauss has to throw into the void to get instability? He has to "apply" quantum mechanics, "apply" gravity, "apply" relativity....If he's applying all of those laws and forces to Nothing [not "Nothing"], where is he getting all of those laws and forces to apply to Nothing to get the instability that activates the mathematics that gives rise to the physics that lives in the house that Jack built?

You are an irreligious theist clinging in terror to the last bit of God you have left and are desperately trying to shove god in there, with nothing more than word - juggling.

How well you presume to know me! Such haymaker swipes hardly constitute a compelling response.

If you [or Krauss] can't tell me a simple thing like what the universe is made of with no energy, you're hardly in a position to accuse me of "word - juggling".

It is rather you who denies questioning; you rather insist on a conclusion (the sorta -god U like) and juggling terms and concepts and even supposing you know better than Krauss, in order to push away and doubts and questions.

Why? Because "Krauss-says-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" isn't enough for me? In the video with Colbert, the good Doctor even encourages Stephen to be skeptical. "I am," Stephen replies.

So am I.

No. You are still trying to force through something magical and supernatural into what is just mysterious, unseen in usual human experience and largely as yet unknown. You are word -juggling to do that and ignoring that you have to account for an intelligence as well as creative being for nothing, or you have a bigger problem than Something from nothing.

You are also doing the fallacy of appeal to unknowns. I believe I already said this, though maybe not to you. Mathematically, gravity was described before Einstein explained a bit more and I don't think we know entirely what it is as yet. That does not mean it isn't true. It is the stock fallacy of Theism, if a thing can't be explained down to the last detail, it supposedly fails. I leave the persistent failing to you.

Also appeal to authority, Stephen Fry in this case. It is a familiar Theist trick to quotemine other atheists to make it look it like they refute each other. I recall I even said I had my mind open about all this and only argue it is less of a problem than a cosmic mind. I also recall you said Krauss made 'god'plausible and posted a clip where he absolutely did not. Why should I trust anything you say on the matter?

Pal, your faith based mindset is making you commit fallacy after fallacy. Trying to force through Godfaith. That is what you are quite plainly trying to do. I am being wide -open skeptical. Just aomething from nothing naturally was always a valid counter hypothesis and Krauss and Hawking at least produces a mathematical backup. Theism producesonly an extra problem they never, ever, try to explain more than pointing to the Gospel of John.