Let's pretend...

[Tcg]

.

...that any of the arguments for god are valid. We have to pretend of course because they are horrible. But, if one established that a god created us, them, the universe and whatever else, what reason would there be to conclude that creator is still around?

As I like to present for example, maybe god was given a chemistry set for Christmas one year and he accidentally blew himself up. Then his bits and pieces and those of the chemistry set become the universe. There'd be no more god any more.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30

the understanding that things work naturally and not by any supernatural means

It isn't about how things work; it's about how things exist.

is self evident

Yes.....self-evident----not self-explanatory.

Cosmic stuff (aside from my personal argument that something from nothing is more logically probable than Goddunnit) does not alter that nor validate a supernatural cause because you do not know that nor can you prove it or even make it probable.

Which is less logical: something coming from what we don't directly perceive, or something coming from what isn't there?

How probable can you make the latter?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30

the understanding that things work naturally and not by any supernatural means

It isn't about how things work; it's about how things exist.

is self evident

Yes.....self-evident----not self-explanatory.

Cosmic stuff (aside from my personal argument that something from nothing is more logically probable than Goddunnit) does not alter that nor validate a supernatural cause because you do not know that nor can you prove it or even make it probable.

Which is less logical: something coming from what we don't directly perceive, or something coming from what isn't there?

How probable can you make the latter?

I get you, but I've already dealt with this. The materialist default (apologetic) is based on how things are and how we know they are and how they do not (on any decent evidence) appear to be. Questions of existence (cosmic origins, isn't it?) are another matter and frankly nobody knows one way or the other, so it is no usueful apologetic for you.

I can't make it too convincing even for me. That's why I say it is a valid gap for a god, and that's all that it is. I have argued that the principle of parsimony suggests that a really basic cosmic stuff that is as near nothing as makes no difference becoming Something (energy, in fact) multiplies less logical entities than a creative Intelligence with no origin of its'own; but that's as far as that goes. It is certainly not Less feasible than a 'god'.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32

I can't make it too convincing even for me. That's why I say it is a valid gap for a god, and that's all that it is. I have argued that the principle of parsimony suggests that a really g Something (energy, in fact) multiplies less logical entities than a creative Intelligence with no origin of its'own; but that's as far as that goes. It is certainly not Less feasible than a 'god'.

Nothing and something are mutually exclusive; either there is one or there is the other; there are no shades of gray between them. 0.0000000000000000000001 isn't zero. If it isn't zero it isn't nothing, and if it isn't nothing, you have to multiply entities to explain it. You invoke "basic cosmic stuff that is as near nothing as makes no difference" as your starting point from which you don't have to multiply entities, but since your "nothing" is actually something, you have to multiply entities to get from nothing to your starting point.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, I get you. And yet the experiments that show that a created (manufactured) Nothing (vaxcuum) still can produce energy and the observation of particles that become nothing by matter meeting antimatter and that reforming into matter again is a hint that your insistence that even the tiniest difference between substance and non - substance is an impassible barrier may be more a human convention than a virtual reality. Something from Nothing is no more than hypothesis, but then you contrast that with a creative intelligence supposedly invisible and impalpable and with no origin, I'm just sayin' - without even getting to the far less feasible religious personal gods, isn't that making a claim that makes less sense and is less supported by the evidence than a something-nothing ongoing exchange?

Well, you may say no. but in the end that doesn't matter, nor that you (or some theist) may dismiss it, it does seem more credible than a non -created God, and thus, while nothing I can argue would sell to the believer in a God as a 'given' default -theory, something from nothing even as a hypothetical possibility (which is all you need to eliminate that gap for a god) means that the Theist cannot make a case to me (or any other nontheist) that an eternal uncreated but intelligent, creative but non substance God is 'the only possible explanation'. Cosmic origins and thus Kalam is NOT a valid argument for a 'First Cause' (let alone a Creator and forget a religious God) and hasn't been for quite a few years.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34

Again, I get you. And yet the experiments that show that a created (manufactured) Nothing (vaxcuum) still can produce energy

Vacuum isn't Nothing, and it doesn't produce energy. All creating a vacuum does is remove atmospheric gases, revealing the force of the zero-point energy field which was already there.

The sticking point for you seems to be the notion of a consciousness existing unproduced. That could open up a discussion on the nature of consciousness, but my purpose here has been to start a process of elimination using the logical impossibility of material existence accounting for itself as a starting point.

[JoeyKnothead]

The sticking point for you seems to be the notion of a consciousness existing unproduced. That could open up a discussion on the nature of consciousness,...

but my purpose here has been to start a process of elimination using the logical impossibility of material existence accounting for itself as a starting point.

By introducing the impossibility of something non-material accounting for itself as a starting point.

[Tcg]

The sticking point for you seems to be the notion of a consciousness existing unproduced. That could open up a discussion on the nature of consciousness,...

but my purpose here has been to start a process of elimination using the logical impossibility of material existence accounting for itself as a starting point.

By introducing the impossibility of something non-material accounting for itself as a starting point.

That's the rub we bump up against time and time again. The claim that the cosmos can't exist absent of a creator, but the creator of the cosmos can. The flaw is so obvious it astounds me that it hasn't yet faded into antiquity. Maybe the herpetologists don't want to give up on the idea.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #37

That's the rub we bump up against time and time again. The claim that the cosmos can't exist absent of a creator, but the creator of the cosmos can.

Then you can explain how material existence accounts for itself without invoking a material explanation, which needs another explanation, which needs another, which needs another, which needs another.......?

There's that stack of turtles again.

[JoeyKnothead]

Then you can explain how material existence accounts for itself without invoking a material explanation, which needs another explanation, which needs another, which needs another, which needs another.......?

There's that stack of turtles again.

Then you can explain how nonmaterial existence accounts for itself without invoking a nonmaterial explanation, which needs another explanation, which needs another, which needs another, which needs another.......?

There's that stack of turtles again.

See how it works yet?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34

Again, I get you. And yet the experiments that show that a created (manufactured) Nothing (vaxcuum) still can produce energy

Vacuum isn't Nothing, and it doesn't produce energy. All creating a vacuum does is remove atmospheric gases, revealing the force of the zero-point energy field which was already there.

The sticking point for you seems to be the notion of a consciousness existing unproduced. That could open up a discussion on the nature of consciousness, but my purpose here has been to start a process of elimination using the logical impossibility of material existence accounting for itself as a starting point.

Removes atmospheric gases and everything else, revealing innate energy which was already there. Isn't that the point? That that energy is innate without matter? I get what you are implying - that the experiment was done by idiots who took out the gases and left lumps of rock in there and said 'Wow! Nothingness produces rocks!". I'm sure the experiment was designed to eliminate outside energy contaminating the 'nothingness', revealing an innate energy that existed without having to come from anywhere. Still I note your objection and I'll keep it mind as a possible objection and reason why nobody knows and there is no explanation for cosmic origins.

And, yes, I know that you are trying to mystify consciousness and make it 'spiritual' and have been trying to argue logical impossibility of material existence existing without creation, but that shows a flaw in your thinking. The material is energy which is surely what consciousness is. And energy is the starting point, not matter. So logically if energy can exist without creation as a consciousness, then it is more logical that it could exist without being created as a non -consciousness.

Whichever way you try to argue it, you are multiplying entities to add an ordered energy (consciousness) to energy. Logically, God is always going to be less probable than non -conscious energy.

I have to note this, too, that you imply a bias on my part and trying to find an argument to support material origins. But aren't you doing the same? It looks like you want there to be an uncreated Mind and you want to present a 'logical' reason why - not that an uncreated consciousness is equally likely, but it i logically impossible for it to be anything else. The bias works both ways, and you'd do better to leave alone the finger -pointing and just consider the logic of origins ofd cosmic 'stuff', which even if you're right, nobody has an explanation, but we still have the material default and your appeal to 'who made everything, then?' (origins of the material) is merely theistic bias.

I know how that works, because I see it all the time.