Definition of God

[JoeyKnothead]

I won't name the source, cause it was offered in the spirit of explanation moreso than outright fact, but let's fuss on it all the same:

...
For a general definition of God, "the underlying source of all else which exists"...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm God is the underlying source of all else which exists.

Remember, the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site .

[brunumb]

[You] find me guilty of "juggling with words....to make a god look more probable", but [you] keep trying to endow infinite, inert emptiness with properties and abilities which, by its very nature, it would be incapable of posessing.

I'm wondering what basis you have for making that claim.

What particular basis do I need in order to assume that the absence of all characteristics would have no characteristics?

You are assuming that the only alternative is absolute nothingness with zero characteristics and instead propose a god with a host of characteristics that have never been demonstrated.

ETA: I'm now wondering, where is it that God resides? Was it always there, or did God have to create it?

[TRANSPONDER]

[You] find me guilty of "juggling with words....to make a god look more probable", but [you] keep trying to endow infinite, inert emptiness with properties and abilities which, by its very nature, it would be incapable of posessing.

I'm wondering what basis you have for making that claim.

What particular basis do I need in order to assume that the absence of all characteristics would have no characteristics?

Really that this is the only way to prpose an hypothesis that solves the infinite regression problem of Cosmic origins. An eternal God with no origins of its' own makes the problem even worse and bland assumption that this complex being always existed calls for far more assumptions that a nothing that acts as something. Which has little to do and there is some evidence to support it.

That is rather the way it is with abiogenesis where chemical evolution, the evidence of water and biochemicals being very common in the universe and all you need is a molecule to replicate itself and you have life looks very probable. The Theist rejection of this fails because they have to say that what looks only too feasible is 'impossible' and 'God' (with not a shred of decent evidence and no mechanism) "Must" be the answer.

Something from Nothing always multiplied less logical entities than a God with no origin of its' own, but it just looks a little bit more feasible now. Which is not to claim that we know or even Assume anything. It's just that it can't be dismissed as 'impossible' and theism can't logically say that 'God' must be the only possible answer.

[William]

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66"This is all still very theoretical and an unknown, but it really does remove the whole question away from the solution of a god waving a magic wand."

How? By having inert emptiness waving a magic wand?

Not if the emptiness doesn't need one as the potentiality is there and always has been

"I have to remind you that your 'move' to assert that nothing can only act like Something if a Cosmic Mind makes it happen has already been countered, since because you have to explain where such a complex entity came from."

But you don't need anything for a complex universe to come from?

Yes, you need chemical evolution. That is the tendency of simple energy -packet formations to form larger units, thus forming 'stuff' or basic matter.

I repeat that this is hypothetical- theoretial; just a suggestion, but noting experiments that suggest that energy can exist in nothingness. Plus the realisation that particles are pretty much nothingness doing stuff.

And I would ask you to account for the origins of a cosmic mind and why that is more credible than this something from nothing I outlined, and why it would go through an evolutionary process instead of just making what it intended to make all in one go?

"Not if the emptiness doesn't need one as the potentiality is there and always has been"

How is that any different from having emptiness waving a magic wand?


"I repeat that this is hypothetical- theoretial; just a suggestion, but noting experiments that suggest that energy can exist in nothingness. Plus the realisation that particles are pretty much nothingness doing stuff.

I'm not convinced that such experiments carry much weight since the zero-point field seems to be the lowest level of energy within this puff of smoke we refer to as the Known Universe, which means that we don't actually have any Nothingness to do any experimenting with. "Pretty much" doesn't cut it.


"And I would ask you to account for the origins of a cosmic mind and why that is more credible than this something from nothing I outlined, and why it would go through an evolutionary process instead of just making what it intended to make all in one go?"

I find it more credible because I believe that a process of elimination leads in that direction. If you hold with the law of conservation, which states in part that energy can't be created, then you definitely can't get something from nothing.

And I don't feel obligated to speculate on the motives or methods of a cosmic mind. Again, that's epistemology and not cosmology.

[brunumb]

If you hold with the law of conservation, which states in part that energy can't be created, then you definitely can't get something from nothing.

And yet some undefined God-magic is supposed to achieve just that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Or two unicorns were on the Ark discussing what God was like. They didn't know, but both agreed it had four legs and a very splendid horn.

"By the way, gorgeous, I'm Julia. What's your name?"

"Marjorie."

Which is why unicorns are extinct.

[Athetotheist]

If you hold with the law of conservation, which states in part that energy can't be created, then you definitely can't get something from nothing.

And yet some undefined God-magic is supposed to achieve just that.

Not if some "undefined God-magic", as you put it, has always been underlying the existence of energy.

[brunumb]

If you hold with the law of conservation, which states in part that energy can't be created, then you definitely can't get something from nothing.

And yet some undefined God-magic is supposed to achieve just that.

Not if some "undefined God-magic", as you put it, has always been underlying the existence of energy.

But the IF in that statement makes the argument moot.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66"This is all still very theoretical and an unknown, but it really does remove the whole question away from the solution of a god waving a magic wand."

How? By having inert emptiness waving a magic wand?

Not if the emptiness doesn't need one as the potentiality is there and always has been

"I have to remind you that your 'move' to assert that nothing can only act like Something if a Cosmic Mind makes it happen has already been countered, since because you have to explain where such a complex entity came from."

But you don't need anything for a complex universe to come from?

Yes, you need chemical evolution. That is the tendency of simple energy -packet formations to form larger units, thus forming 'stuff' or basic matter.

I repeat that this is hypothetical- theoretial; just a suggestion, but noting experiments that suggest that energy can exist in nothingness. Plus the realisation that particles are pretty much nothingness doing stuff.

And I would ask you to account for the origins of a cosmic mind and why that is more credible than this something from nothing I outlined, and why it would go through an evolutionary process instead of just making what it intended to make all in one go?

"Not if the emptiness doesn't need one as the potentiality is there and always has been"

How is that any different from having emptiness waving a magic wand?


"I repeat that this is hypothetical- theoretial; just a suggestion, but noting experiments that suggest that energy can exist in nothingness. Plus the realisation that particles are pretty much nothingness doing stuff.

I'm not convinced that such experiments carry much weight since the zero-point field seems to be the lowest level of energy within this puff of smoke we refer to as the Known Universe, which means that we don't actually have any Nothingness to do any experimenting with. "Pretty much" doesn't cut it.


"And I would ask you to account for the origins of a cosmic mind and why that is more credible than this something from nothing I outlined, and why it would go through an evolutionary process instead of just making what it intended to make all in one go?"

I find it more credible because I believe that a process of elimination leads in that direction. If you hold with the law of conservation, which states in part that energy can't be created, then you definitely can't get something from nothing.

And I don't feel obligated to speculate on the motives or methods of a cosmic mind. Again, that's epistemology and not cosmology.

Because it is the difference between Schridinger's cat and pulling a rabbit out of a hat. the nothing that is also something is like the cat that is or is not (Indeterminacy is scientifically supported) whereas a complex entity that came from nothing is playing a trick on the audience.

Again, this isn't about the known Universe which does have an origin in the Big Bang. It is the origins of the 'stuff' that the BB event was made from that has to be explained.

A process of elimination leads more credibly (or so I suggest) to a non -created nothing that can become the most basic 'something' that there can be. If you think that doesn't cut it, a complex being with no origin cuts it far less. As to the law of conservation of energy, that's fine on the physical world we live on and work with, but it's a different matter at sub atomic and quantum level, and even more so when talking of (not dismissing out of hand) evidence of a nothing that has innate energy.

"And I don't feel obligated to speculate on the motives or methods of a cosmic mind. Again, that's epistemology and not cosmology." And that's evasion where there is no explanation, let alone one that would 'cut it'.

Again, this is all very speculative, but it does make 'something from nothing' a hypothesis with far less to explain away than a god without any origin. And it isn't even important as you'd still have to show which god it was before you could validate any particular religion - which is what the debate is Really about.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #79

Because it is the difference between Schridinger's cat and pulling a rabbit out of a hat. the nothing that is also something is like the cat that is or is not (Indeterminacy is scientifically supported) whereas a complex entity that came from nothing is playing a trick on the audience.

You don't have to look in the box to see if the cat is dead. If it is, it will start to stink.

As to the law of conservation of energy, that's fine on the physical world we live on and work with, but it's a different matter at sub atomic and quantum level, and even more so when talking of (not dismissing out of hand) evidence of a nothing that has innate energy.

Are you saying that the law of energy conservation isn't a law? If there's energy, there isn't nothing.

Again, this is all very speculative, but it does make 'something from nothing' a hypothesis with far less to explain away than a god without any origin.

"Something from nothing" means that Nothing has to create Something. How is that less magical than a cosmic mind?

And it isn't even important as you'd still have to show which god it was before you could validate any particular religion - which is what the debate is Really about.

When did I say that I was trying to validate a particular religion?