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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #85

Sorry. Your efforts to insist that a reduction out of the turtles by shoving another turtle in there does not change the idea, or suggestion of an idea, of a 'something' (if you insist) that is nothinglike enough that it does not require to be created, but can itself create (or can become) the basic stuff. It merely makes your stack of turtles longer. Insisting on calling it 'something' does not change the idea, or mere idea of an idea. It just puts a label on it that you can dismissively equivocate. I'm not falling for it.

The idea that something can be "nothinglike enough" to pass for nothing is nonsensical on its face. To pass for nothing, something would have to do nothing.

You have two puzzles; I only have one.

That's like saying, "You have to pull two rabbits out of an empty hat; I only have to pull one out.," or "You're trying to make 2 + 2 equal 200 while I'm only trying to make 2 + 2 equal 100." You seem to assume that the universe is going to give you a break because your magic trick is a little shorter. Logic doesn't work that way, and a purely materialistic universe doesn't allow you to abandon the rules of logic. If you're suggesting that it does, then you are making my argument for me.

What, exactly is your argument?

There's something we observe - the universe.

There's something you propose to explain the universe existing.

What is that something?

Oh oh, pick me! Pick me!
That something is... I don't know.

If a person wants to be provided an answer as to how the universe and us humans came to be, there are countless religions to choose from that supply answers. Who knows, maybe one of the religions got it right! How could we ever pretend to know though? That escapes me, so until more knowledge is gained, I must be content with not knowing.

I note that not all humans seem comfortable with not knowing. Again, for such people it seems humans have invented religions and god concepts. I say this because it is not logical for humans to have invented thousands of false gods while assuming one of the religions actually had a god behind it. It's like acknowledging that movies are created by humans, while trying to argue that this one movie here, this one was inspired by a god unlike all the other movies out there.

At the risk of repetition, the efforts to play Cosmic Origins as a gap for god does not work.

The universe is here, how come?
Don't know
Universal constant?
Don't know
Why is there something rather than Nothing? Fine tuning, a place for Life, Goldilocks zone?
Don't know.

Well then...Intelligent creator.

No We don't know, but we do know physics, matter/energy and biology exist, we don't know that a god exists

Bottom line, what nobody knows is first choice hypothesis material/Natural, not a god.

It absolutely has to be Faith in (or at least mental bias towards) a god to think that is the prime choice for an explanation of the unknown. It isn't, even long before anyone pulls out a Bible as 'evidence' for what this god is.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #88

At the risk of repetition, the efforts to play Cosmic Origins as a gap for god does not work.

The question of cosmic origins doesn't involve a "gap". A gap lies between solid areas; the question of cosmic origins is about the difference between existence and nonexistence (something and nothing). If all there is on one side is "we don't know", then it isn't a gap; it's a precipice.

You seem to miss that I'm not so much presenting a valid hypothesis but a preferable option out of the impasse of eternal something or infinite regression.

"Preferable" in what sense? How do you escape an eternal something by merely assuming that "cosmic stuff" doesn't require a source? How do you escape an infinite reduction by proposing something which acts like nothing acting like something, but not acting enough like nothing to actually do nothing?

I'm proposing a single underlying principle as opposed to an infinite reduction of mechanistic agencies to get from "nothing" to "something". So which of us is really multiplying agencies more?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #87

What, exactly is your argument?

My argument is what I stated in my first post in this thread:

The universe isn't self-explanatory. Any material explanation invoked to account for the universe's existence will be part of the universe itself, which will make the materialistic explanation a circular argument. Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to posit the existence of an agency beyond the material universe.

There's something we observe - the universe.

There's something you propose to explain the universe existing.

What is that something?

I've come about as close to defining it as I know how. It's like trying to define what exactly precipitated the Big Bang.

[Clownboat]

My argument is what I stated in my first post in this thread:

The universe isn't self-explanatory. Any material explanation invoked to account for the universe's existence will be part of the universe itself, which will make the materialistic explanation a circular argument. Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to posit the existence of an agency beyond the material universe.

To the bold, I have done just that.
Fairy farts explain the creation of our universe quite nicely. Even explains all the gas!

Now why would a god of sorts be a perferable explanation when compared to a fairy fart?

[William]

I note that not all humans seem comfortable with not knowing. Again, for such people it seems humans have invented religions and god concepts. I say this because it is not logical for humans to have invented thousands of false gods while assuming one of the religions actually had a god behind it. It's like acknowledging that movies are created by humans, while trying to argue that this one movie here, this one was inspired by a god unlike all the other movies out there.

If GOD were an overcoat, this equates to some saying that the top button is the true representation of GOD whiles others insist that it is actually the left pocket which is right.

Stepping back.
I observe that altogether the treads have created a whole garment, and when the garment is removed from its position, there isn't even any framework to be seen which would have held it up...and I have to wonder what trick was played on me as to how the garment came together and floated there all garment-like...for surely it has to be magic, right?

But because I cannot explain it that way, I look for another answer...because it might just be mind-over-matter and the thing 'disappears' when the garment is removed...but not really...

[William]

My argument is what I stated in my first post in this thread:

The universe isn't self-explanatory. Any material explanation invoked to account for the universe's existence will be part of the universe itself, which will make the materialistic explanation a circular argument. Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to posit the existence of an agency beyond the material universe.

To the bold, I have done just that.
Fairy farts explain the creation of our universe quite nicely. Even explains all the gas!

Now why would a god of sorts be a perferable explanation when compared to a fairy fart?

I have discussed your explanation with


And they assure me that they are just as much a part of this universe as the rest of us, so it was NOT them what caused the Universe to be the gaseous, solid thing that it is...

Nor was it the hippopotamus...

The mystery thickens/deepens.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #87

What, exactly is your argument?

My argument is what I stated in my first post in this thread:

The universe isn't self-explanatory. Any material explanation invoked to account for the universe's existence will be part of the universe itself, which will make the materialistic explanation a circular argument. Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to posit the existence of an agency beyond the material universe.

There's something we observe - the universe.

There's something you propose to explain the universe existing.

What is that something?

I've come about as close to defining it as I know how. It's like trying to define what exactly precipitated the Big Bang.

"Something caused the big bang".

Who can argue with a term so broad as 'something'?

[Athetotheist]

My argument is what I stated in my first post in this thread:

The universe isn't self-explanatory. Any material explanation invoked to account for the universe's existence will be part of the universe itself, which will make the materialistic explanation a circular argument. Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to posit the existence of an agency beyond the material universe.

To the bold, I have done just that.
Fairy farts explain the creation of our universe quite nicely. Even explains all the gas!

Now why would a god of sorts be a perferable explanation when compared to a fairy fart?

Appeal to Ridicule:

Presenting the argument in such a way that makes the argument look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or the use of exaggeration.

---logicallyfallacious.com

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #97

"Something caused the big bang".

Who can argue with a term so broad as 'something'?

Well, that's better than "Nothing caused the Big Bang".

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #97

"Something caused the big bang".

Who can argue with a term so broad as 'something'?

Well, that's better than "Nothing caused the Big Bang".

What turtle caused that something?

You're just adding one more question, and not really explaining anything.