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?

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

That explains it perfectly.Infinite regression (or reduction, I think you said) is counter intuitive (but in a quantum universe, who knows?) which is why something coming from nothing is the postulated solution to the problem, either with a god doing it or it happening without a god - if some plausible mechanism can be proposed.

The story (possibly true or maybe made up) goes like this.Some talk was being given on cosmic origins and a lady stood up and claimed that the earth was on the back of a cosmic turtle.

"But what keeps the turtle up?"

It's on another turtle."

"But what keeps that turtle up?"

"Yore very clever, young man, but it's Turtles all the way down."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #169

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.

Complete nothingness would be completely uniform and thus, presumably, completely stable because it would be inert. For completely inert uniformity to become unstable without physics would be a metaphysical occurrence in itself.

There seem to be two possibilities. Either "nothing" was actually something occupying space, which would have to happen without the help of physics if physics arose from it, or literal nothing was just that----nothing----and something came to fill it, again without physics, either of which would suggest that "metaphysics" is more than just something we can't perceive.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #171

That explains it perfectly.Infinite regression (or reduction, I think you said) is counter intuitive (but in a quantum universe, who knows?)

Infinite reduction might be resorted to in an attempt to avoid other implications, but the void underlying all which physically exists must be factored in at some point.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #169

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.

Complete nothingness would be completely uniform and thus, presumably, completely stable because it would be inert. For completely inert uniformity to become unstable without physics would be a metaphysical occurrence in itself.

There seem to be two possibilities. Either "nothing" was actually something occupying space, which would have to happen without the help of physics if physics arose from it, or literal nothing was just that----nothing----and something came to fill it, again without physics, either of which would suggest that "metaphysics" is more than just something we can't perceive.

But as Krauss argued in the interview you posted (claiming that he said God was "plausible" which he doesn't) he said 'nothingness' was unstable. I referred to the experiment with virtual particles which shows he is right. The point about Nothing needing something 'Metaphysical' doesn't follow as (of course) what made the 'Something metaphysical'? I already argued that physics would come about as a result of whatever worked with those virtual particles, so I see no point in your trying to force that issue.

The point is not whether a nothing that can produce virtual particles is something or nor not, it is that whatever 'Something' it is, it does not need anything to create it

[alexxcJRO]

[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.

We are moving in circles like headless chickens.
We have been in this point before.
Repeating the same thing and pretending we have not talked of this before is very poor debate form.

Previously on alexxcJRO schooling:

"The materialistic omniverse has maybe a necessary first conditions which are causeless, beginningless, mindless.
The infinity regress is a problem for our local universe/local multiverse only which may be part of a bigger, unimaginable, wondrous omniverse.
We could have our local universe inside a multiverse inside a ... cacaverse ... inside a omniverse."

We have a stop gap for supposed infinite regress thingy, infinite reductionism thingy.

Let go of Arguments from Ignorance-God of the Gaps. Arguments from Supposed problems-Arguments from lack of imagination.

[TRANSPONDER]

I believe this is classic God -apologetics behavior or even behaviour. We have seen it many times before; a Bibleclaim gets argued around and rebutted, at least here a case for a god (intelligent creator) and a natural (something from nothing) case can be made which means 'God' is not the only possible theory. Which is what God apologists are always trying to argue - there can be no other possible theory - for origins of Life, for consciousness, for the resurrection -story.

So after a while, the same rebuttled claims are presented again.

Our pal here is not too bad, in trying to wangle in the supernatural by labelling it 'metaphysical'and pretending it's philosophy (as though that had any purview in research science) when it's just the old theist fiddle of trying to drag a god into it.

Godfaith gives itself away - they can't help it - because even if and intelligent creator was got into the discussion by claiming that the mathematical 'potential' of Nothing to produce matter/energy, implies a hidden Something (Aka 'God'), that does not make it the preferred 'theory' but in fact the more problematical one, as where did the cosmic intelligence come from?

But Godfaith betrays itself,every time.

"God (or the Intelligent creator as our pal is an irreligious theist from what i can tell, but battling for this lase God to have a bit of faith in) exists and is the default theory until debunked 100% is how theist -think goes, and so the defenders of sortagod, think that if they can keep "go" as even a remote possibility, they win. That is not how Logic works, but it is how Faith works.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #174

But as Krauss argued in the interview you posted (claiming that he said God was "plausible" which he doesn't) he said 'nothingness' was unstable. I referred to the experiment with virtual particles which shows he is right.

The problem with the experiment is that it has only the space within the known universe to work with. If the known universe is expanding, which it seems to be, the experiment can be expected to show a result of the expansion. That says nothing about the environment beyond the known universe, which could be quite different.

The point is not whether a nothing that can produce virtual particles is something or nor not, it is that whatever 'Something' it is, it does not need anything to create it

Actually, all you've effectively argued is that it doesn't need physics to create it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #174

But as Krauss argued in the interview you posted (claiming that he said God was "plausible" which he doesn't) he said 'nothingness' was unstable. I referred to the experiment with virtual particles which shows he is right.

The problem with the experiment is that it has only the space within the known universe to work with. If the known universe is expanding, which it seems to be, the experiment can be expected to show a result of the expansion. That says nothing about the environment beyond the known universe, which could be quite different.

The point is not whether a nothing that can produce virtual particles is something or nor not, it is that whatever 'Something' it is, it does not need anything to create it

Actually, all you've effectively argued is that it doesn't need physics to create it.

That's all it needs isn't it? According to Krauss, the inherent instability of Nothing (a pretty much substanceless state that does not need creation) is all that is needed to create something.

Now I know there are questions problems, at least of the counter - intuitive kind. But at least it puts a bit of substance behind whether Something from Nothing is in principle not impossible. How it works and where dark matter comes into it are questions and problems, not objections, much less the total debunk that is needed to make an intelligent Creator the only possible option.

You probably know how objections to evolution fail.They ask this question and that and raise that problem or the other, or appeal to unanswered points or what cannot be demonstrated in real time. But all of that is ...well like the Boudiccan revolt. Did she make that speech? Probably not. What became of her?Nobody really knows. Questions there are but that does not affect the default theory that it really happened, and the default theory is that Evolution is real and supported by evidence, and the default theory is that natural/material origins of the universe/cosmos is more probable than a Cosmic mind/'god' even before any mathematical backup of virtual particles experiments. Just as the argument that matter is one problem; intelligent matter is two was enough to make something from nothing without a Cosmic Mind was the go - to theory, not God, and now there are even reasons to say the natural theory has evidential backup.

Asking questions, raising problems and appealing to unknowns does not alter this. It is a basic theist - think flaw to suppose that a few bothersome questions will debunk the scientific atheism theory and leave God (name your own) as the only possible explanation.

It doesn't work that way and is the irrational thinking that invalidates all Theist - thinking, even irreligious theism.

Dude, I don't mind whether you agree or deny, and I don't mind what you have Faith in. What matters is that there is now no serious case for the gap for asortagod of 'Cosmic origins'. There is no reason why anyone should think that a 'God' is necessary for cosmic creation, unless, by Faith, they want to.

Oh boy 69 guests and all welcome.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #178

That's all it needs isn't it? According to Krauss, the inherent instability of Nothing (a pretty much substanceless state that does not need creation) is all that is needed to create something.

What gives an empty void of Nothing "inherent" instability?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #178

That's all it needs isn't it? According to Krauss, the inherent instability of Nothing (a pretty much substanceless state that does not need creation) is all that is needed to create something.

What gives an empty void of Nothing "inherent" instability?

Come off it You know (or should) what a crab argument that is. It is (of course) similar to the irrelevant poking holes in established fact.

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?

The same here. Though not so in Our faces, the virtual particles experiment and the mathematics indicates that inherent instability is the source of Something where enough of a Nothing that no creator is needed is enough of an alternate hypothesis (and without needing to postulate an uncreated Intelligence) to render the case for an Intelligent Creator unnecessary., even if there is as yet no explanation of the mechanics that might be involved.