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 #158

Now you have particles or cosmic stuff creating physics, so you still have particles or cosmic stuff being created without physics.

That's right. So far as I follow it (and I am no physicist) mathematical potential means that instability in Nothingnss or nothing enough not to need creation, produces particles of energy/matter that do stuff or do not. What survives and can be done again becomes physics. What does not, does not survive. The idea seems to prop up whatever the actuality is or was, so it seems your attempt to prove that something from nothing cannot happen is sunk.

You yourself don't have something coming from nothing. You have something coming from "mathematical potential".

If it's "mathematical potential" which gives rise to physics, then mathematical potential is more metaphysical than physical. Ironically, to keep the metaphysical out of the picture----without physics to invoke as an impetus----you have to ascribe more and more power to mathematics until you end up making mathematics itself into a metaphysical force.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #157

String theory may explain the very small vacuum energy we observe because there may be huge set of vacuum like states one of which may the one that filled our pocket universe. Eternal inflation theory says we may have different pocket universes with different kinds of vacuum inside them which would be determined randomly as this pocket universes break of from inflating backbone. You would have different vacuums from the set, different laws of physics(ergo different physics) and different particles depending on pocket universe while having the same laws of strig theory everywhere in all pockets.

ABSTRACT
Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating—or just expanding sufficiently fast—must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.151301

In other words, inflationary models of the universe don't predict eternal expansion. So the issue of the origin of the universe----including the physics of the universe----is not circumvented.

Nobody said eternal inflation in the past.
The idea that our universe supposed "tuned" physics, laws gets "created" does not mean that we don't have more generalized physics making our just a localized version. Arguments for God: Cosmological-Big Bang, Fine Tuning Argument get useless if Inflation + String Theory is a correct description of our reality.
Proving again the fallacious reasoning employed by the religious believers: Argument from Ignorance and God of the Gaps.
You are proving this by putting God in a new gap: "cosmological model which is inflating ... must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions".

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #162

The idea that our universe supposed "tuned" physics, laws gets "created" does not mean that we don't have more generalized physics making our just a localized version. Arguments for God: Cosmological-Big Bang, Fine Tuning Argument get useless if Inflation + String Theory is a correct description of our reality.

Doesn't that just put the universe turtle on the back of a multiverse turtle?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #162

The idea that our universe supposed "tuned" physics, laws gets "created" does not mean that we don't have more generalized physics making our just a localized version. Arguments for God: Cosmological-Big Bang, Fine Tuning Argument get useless if Inflation + String Theory is a correct description of our reality.

Doesn't that just put the universe turtle on the back of a multiverse turtle?

Translation from talking in riddles please.
Q: Why do religious people like to talk in riddles, in vague terms?
Be clear and concise please.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #158

Now you have particles or cosmic stuff creating physics, so you still have particles or cosmic stuff being created without physics.

That's right. So far as I follow it (and I am no physicist) mathematical potential means that instability in Nothingnss or nothing enough not to need creation, produces particles of energy/matter that do stuff or do not. What survives and can be done again becomes physics. What does not, does not survive. The idea seems to prop up whatever the actuality is or was, so it seems your attempt to prove that something from nothing cannot happen is sunk.

You yourself don't have something coming from nothing. You have something coming from "mathematical potential".

If it's "mathematical potential" which gives rise to physics, then mathematical potential is more metaphysical than physical. Ironically, to keep the metaphysical out of the picture----without physics to invoke as an impetus----you have to ascribe more and more power to mathematics until you end up making mathematics itself into a metaphysical force.

No.That's what you want to do. And more than that, you want to make it a cosmic intelligence. If not you are not a theist. The point is not even that mathematics as a reality of physics does not need creation by anything else. it is potentially inherent in an uncreated nothingness. Which is as a hypotheses not only possible but suggested in mathematics by physicists.

Don't ask me to evaluate that claim, but it is an explanatory hypothesis which means that 'God' is not the only possible answer. This God (or a cosmic intelligence) is not necessary.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #164

Doesn't that just put the universe turtle on the back of a multiverse turtle?

Translation from talking in riddles please.
Q: Why do religious people like to talk in riddles, in vague terms?
Be clear and concise please.

You're not familiar with the turtles-all-the-way-down analogy?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #165

The point is not even that mathematics as a reality of physics does not need creation by anything else. it is potentially inherent in an uncreated nothingness.

Mathematics is purely abstract. It doesn't deal with substances, as does chemistry or with forces, as does physics. Mathematics deals only with counting, weighing and measuring. That's why 1+1=2 can refer to one and two of anything.

Therefore, if an abstract means of counting, weighing and measuring brings into existence forces which can be counted, weighed and measured----and I'm not saying that it can't----, that occurrence is by definition metaphysical.

I don't say that it can't happen because there is an example of what you seem to be describing. It appears in the philosophy of Taoism in the form of P'u, "The Uncarved Block" which holds within it all possible forms.

And if you take issue with the notion of a cosmic "intelligence", perhaps you prefer verse 40 of the Tao Te Ching:

Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.
All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

Thus, "Mathematics is potentially inherent in an uncreated nothingness" and "The metaphysical is hardwired into nature" are equivalent statements.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #164

Doesn't that just put the universe turtle on the back of a multiverse turtle?

Translation from talking in riddles please.
Q: Why do religious people like to talk in riddles, in vague terms?
Be clear and concise please.

You're not familiar with the turtles-all-the-way-down analogy?

You're not familiar with: "Nu tot ce zboară se mănâncă".
Fac pariu că nu întelegi o boabă de limba română.

Sir English its not my native language.
In 2015-2016 for example I could not watch movies with English audio without Romanian subtitle.
Explain it clearly and concisely.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #165

The point is not even that mathematics as a reality of physics does not need creation by anything else. it is potentially inherent in an uncreated nothingness.

Mathematics is purely abstract. It doesn't deal with substances, as does chemistry or with forces, as does physics. Mathematics deals only with counting, weighing and measuring. That's why 1+1=2 can refer to one and two of anything.

Therefore, if an abstract means of counting, weighing and measuring brings into existence forces which can be counted, weighed and measured----and I'm not saying that it can't----, that occurrence is by definition metaphysical.

I don't say that it can't happen because there is an example of what you seem to be describing. It appears in the philosophy of Taoism in the form of P'u, "The Uncarved Block" which holds within it all possible forms.

And if you take issue with the notion of a cosmic "intelligence", perhaps you prefer verse 40 of the Tao Te Ching:

Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.
All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

Thus, "Mathematics is potentially inherent in an uncreated nothingness" and "The metaphysical is hardwired into nature" are equivalent statements.

tinkering about with words doesn't alter the position that mathematics is rules that apply to things that exist, and don't need creation like the distance between A and B or the angle between x or y. Metaphysical isn't the term I'd use,but conceptual. Metaphysical (1) sounds like an effort to misuse philosophy to slide theism under the laboratory door.

With a nothing that does not need creation, and instability (worked out from, but not created by, mathematics) leading (theoreticallY) to matter/energy or the basic cosmic stuff, what works and repeats becomes physics. It does not need to be created, mathematically, metaphysically or theistically. Agod does not appear to be necessary. The gap for a god (name your own) has not closed, but (like abiogenesis) is much decreased, and 'God' is not at all the only possible explanation or even the best one.

(1) It's worth looking up this term seemingly as loosely used as 'philosophy' which both seem to be used to screen efforts to smuggle Theism into ascientific discussion

Off Quora.
What is the difference between metaphysical and spiritual?
According to this (old) page, metaphysics is the study of things beyond anything humans can perceive. Because of this fact, metaphysics is relatively faith-based discipline and, compared to science, lacks evidence. According to the dictionary, Spiritual things are immaterial things affecting the spirit.

Speculations about unknowns whether through philosophy or religions (and I don't know which Taoism in the old days before it became firecrackers and paper dragons, which is a lot more fun) remain unknowns and are factually or evidentially worthless and have been overtaken by science as is usually the case. And that applies to Cosmic origins, too.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #168

Sir English its not my native language.
In 2015-2016 for example I could not watch movies with English audio without Romanian subtitle.
Explain it clearly and concisely.

Thank you for the clarification. No offense was intended.

"Turtles all the way down" illustrates the problem of infinite regress, placing the world on the back of an enormous turtle. When someone asks what the turtle is standing on, the answer is that the turtle is on the back of an even larger turtle, and so on and so on, ultimately being turtles all the way down.

So having the universe spring from a multiverse is essentially turtles all the way up.