(Ed) A defense of theism/deism

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Lupus

Let's say that proof is over 65% likely. Do you have a good answer for the question now? I know already how science is based on induction and will never be 100% certain. Don't particles exist, your explanation of why you don't consider quantum mechanics to be God doesn't add up.

What do you mean by saying that "proof is over 65% likely"?? ... that sentence has no meaning at all ...

... I just told you that actual "proof" is thought to be inherently impossible (for anything) in a universe where the underlying processes are probabilistic.

And in any case I also just pointed out to you that science never claims actual "proof". In science we establish "Theories". Most non-scientists, if they knew how strongly supported those theories are by the evidence, probably would regard them as absolutely certain proven 100% fact ... but science does not make that mistake ... science does not go so far as to make that claim ... because even those theories are not truly known as absolute certain fact.

You think that the explanation does not add-up (ie your claim that I should regard QM as God ... that was your claim, certainly not mine!), because you don't understand the explanation that I just gave you. YOU NEED TO READ IT AGAIN, PROPERLY!

Just to tell you again for the 4th or 5th time - in that model which I suggested above, the energy fields must always exist (and I already explained to you why that is).

And I also just explained to you that QM is not a physical existing thing! It's mathematical framework that allows us to calculate various properties of matter and energy … where it's particularly useful at the smallest sub-atomic scales.

Do you want to say that the proposed/suggested eternally existing energy fields should be called “God” (that's a Christian god of the bible in your views, isn't it? … ie YOU are making claims about that biblical God)? If you want to make a claim like that, then you are guilty of merely misusing the word God to be whatever we might find as the ultimate explanation for anything … you appear to be trying to claim that whatever we find to be the answer then you will claim that is God (whatever it turns out to be).

In what I just described/proposed, the eternal energy of the universe is not any form of intelligent creator! It's a set of entirely innanimate unthinking force fields … just like the evolved energy fields that we can detect and measure today, eg the electromagnetic field, or a gravity filed, or indeed the Higgs Field … do you want to rename one of those “God”?

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Lupus

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

For all the kinds of fantastic stuff, we don't know whether they exist or not. It's just uncertain and all you can do is ignore it. I personally never really think about them nowadays.

That's reasonable. I concur.

Quote:

On the other hand of it not being skeptical, it isn't skeptical to think that you can actually deny things that aren't disproven.

Again, agreed.

Quote:

You can pretend that you can and it can be a helpful tool, but in reality it just isn't known.

No reason to do that. You've yourself spelt out a good way to deal with things that aren't disproved, but that don't satisfy the burden of proof either: "all you can do is ignore it". That's good policy, for things of this nature.

The point is, isn't God squarely a part of things of this nature?

Quote:

I don't think it really matters whether its a pantheon or just God. God here is just a descriptive word. Would using "The Creator(s)" be more clear?

Okay, fair.

But my larger point was, even if I grant that there has been a primal creating force -- not that that's a given, but just for sake of argument -- why do you even assume that creating force, or Creator if you will, is even conscious or intelligent or anything, as opposed to just some force, some potential? Doesn't that assumption raise far more questions than it answers (or attempts to answer)?

Quote:

There's this phenomenon in astronomy called the "Axis of Evil" that is too much of a coincidence to happen naturally. The consequences of this being true may be scary. It is where the Cosmic Microwave Background that covers the entire universe is perpendicular to our Solar System's ellipse and also moves in the same direction and speed of our Solar System. It pretty much shows that the Earth via the Sun is in the center of the Universe. They tested it again in 2020 and got the same result. I'll copy paste the abstract.

"We apply the multipole vector framework to full-sky maps derived from the first year WMAP data. We significantly extend our earlier work showing that the two lowest cosmologically interesting multipoles, ℓ = 2 and 3, are not statistically isotropic. These results are compared to the findings obtained using related methods. In particular, we show that the planes of the quadrupole and the octopole are unexpectedly aligned. Moreover, the combined quadrupole plus octopole is surprisingly aligned with the geometry and direction of motion of the solar system: the plane they define is perpendicular to the ecliptic plane and to the plane defined by the dipole direction, and the ecliptic plane carefully separates stronger from weaker extrema, running within a couple of degrees of the null-contour between a maximum and a minimum over more than 120◦ of the sky. Even given the alignment of the quadrupole and octopole with each other, we find that their alignment with the ecliptic is unlikely at > 98% C.L., and argue that it is in fact unlikely at > 99.9% C.L. Most of the ℓ = 2 and 3 multipole
vectors of the known Galactic foregrounds are located far from those of the observed sky, strongly suggesting that residual contamination by such foregrounds is unlikely to be the cause of the observed correlations. Multipole vectors, like individual aℓm, are very sensitive to sky cuts, and we demonstrate that analyses using cut skies induce relatively large errors, thus weakening the observed correlations but preserving their consistency with the full-sky results. Similarly, the analysis of COBE cut-sky maps shows increased errors but is consistent with WMAP full-sky results. We briefly extend these explorations to higher multipoles, noting again anomalous deviations from statistical isotropy and comparing with ecliptic asymmetry manifest in the WMAP team’s own analysis. If the correlations we observe are indeed a signal of non-cosmic origin, then the lack of lowℓ power will very likely be exacerbated, with important consequences for our understanding of cosmology on large scales."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0508047.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

That's the first I've heard of this.

That could make for an interesting discussion. It's off-topic here, obviously, but if you'd like to start a new thread, I'll be happy to tag along. I'm not sure I might have any meaningful contributions to make, seeing how little I know about this Axis of Evil, or indeed about astrology in general, but it seems interesting enough.

(Although, fair warning, and not to lead you on under false pretenses, I'm not taking this very seriously at all, nor do I take astrology seriously either. But, that said, I'd still be interesting to know a bit more about this should you choose to start a discussion on this subject. And, as ever, I'm open to changing my mind should good evidence be forthcoming, whether on astronomy in general or this Axis thing in particular.)



eta:

I'd mis-typed "astrology" as "astronomy" above, and am editing this to correct that typo. I've read your post, but I haven't yet clicked the links you've posted there. Although you say "astronomy" yourself, I'm guessing you meant "astrology" instead, when speaking of this Axis of Evil, right?

Because if you actually meant "astronomy", then that makes this even more interesting. Entirely unlikely, it seems to me: but let me not pre-judge before the discussion even gets started. If "astronomy" is what you actually meant, then a new thread might be a great idea, because we've got some people very well versed in astronomy here, against whom you might enjoy bouncing off your ideas. And it would probably make interesting reading for us sitting in the peanut gallery with the popcorn.

[Lupus]

Originally Posted by IanS

What do you mean by saying that "proof is over 65% likely"?? ... that sentence has no meaning at all ...

A p-value of 0.35 then. How about this, what would you say is the general likelihood that it is completely true?

Quote:

Most non-scientists, if they knew how strongly supported those theories are by the evidence, probably would regard them as absolutely certain proven 100% fact ... but science does not make that mistake ... science does not go so far as to make that claim ... because even those theories are not truly known as absolute certain fact.

I'd love to know what the evidence that is that would make regard it as 100% fact as my current view stands as it had to have been a Creator being.

Quote:

Just to tell you again for the 4th or 5th time - in that model which I suggested above, the energy fields must always exist (and I already explained to you why that is).

Yes, I wasn't asking about that.

Quote:

And I also just explained to you that QM is not a physical existing thing! It's mathematical framework that allows us to calculate various properties of matter and energy … where it's particularly useful at the smallest sub-atomic scales.

Do you want to say that the proposed/suggested eternally existing energy fields should be called “God” (that's a Christian god of the bible in your views, isn't it? … ie YOU are making claims about that biblical God)? If you want to make a claim like that, then you are guilty of merely misusing the word God to be whatever we might find as the ultimate explanation for anything … you appear to be trying to claim that whatever we find to be the answer then you will claim that is God (whatever it turns out to be).

In what I just described/proposed, the eternal energy of the universe is not any form of intelligent creator! It's a set of entirely innanimate unthinking force fields … just like the evolved energy fields that we can detect and measure today, eg the electromagnetic field, or a gravity filed, or indeed the Higgs Field … do you want to rename one of those “God”?

No, I wouldn't. I'm interested though to hear how quantum mechanics alone could have made trillions of universes. Surely if some gets hit by a bus, it's the bus, not the physics that did it. In the same vein, it's the particle/waves that would have enacted quantum mechanics. Isn't that how we know that they exist, because of being about the observe those particles?

Originally Posted by Chanakya

But my larger point was, even if I grant that there has been a primal creating force -- not that that's a given, but just for sake of argument -- why do you even assume that creating force, or Creator if you will, is even conscious or intelligent or anything, as opposed to just some force, some potential? Doesn't that assumption raise far more questions than it answers (or attempts to answer)?

He would have to have a mind and a will that drove him to create the world. What would've drove him to make the first decision, but that. With the scope and complexity of the Universe, he'd need to be intelligent beyond belief. To make a Universe suitable for life, it would have some implications on who he is. That he does very little after is a sign of his indifference not our problems, which could also mean something about him. For the last two, I'm not sure what exactly this means about the Creator at the present.
Although it rests on softer ground the Christian version of God being Jesus is also appeals to me, but I'll limit myself here.

Quote:

I'm guessing you meant "astrology" instead, when speaking of this Axis of Evil, right?

Wrong.

Quote:

That could make for an interesting discussion.

I'd like to see the discussion as well about it as I find it too bizarre.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Lupus

...
He would have to have a mind and a will that drove him to create the world. What would've drove him to make the first decision, but that. With the scope and complexity of the Universe, he'd need to be intelligent beyond belief. To make a Universe suitable for life, it would have some implications on who he is. That he does very little after is a sign of his indifference not our problems, which could also mean something about him. For the last two, I'm not sure what exactly this means about the Creator at the present.
Although it rests on softer ground the Christian version of God being Jesus is also appeals to me, but I'll limit myself here.

All of that presupposes that "He" has a "mind", intelligence, consciousness.

My question was, Why do you assume the Creative Principle, the prime mover, should there be such a thing, has consciousness at all?

And my other question was, does that assumption not raise far more questions than it seeks to answer, starting with where and how such an intelligent creating force popped out of in the force; as well as how it came by the power, the ability, the capacity, to create stuff. If you're going to throw up your hands and shrug that question away, why wouldn't you do that with the original question itself, about the (ultimate) origin of the universe?

Quote:

Wrong.

I'd like to see the discussion as well about it as I find it too bizarre.

You can go right ahead and start a new thread on that subject if you wish, referencing your previous post. Like I said, that would give you the chance to test your ideas with astronomy geeks who are far better informed than I am on astronomy. And it might provide the rest of us with an interesting read.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Lupus

1 A p-value of 0.35 then. How about this, what would you say is the general likelihood that it is completely true?

2 I'd love to know what the evidence that is that would make regard it as 100% fact as my current view stands as it had to have been a Creator being.


3. Yes, I wasn't asking about that.

4. No, I wouldn't. I'm interested though to hear how quantum mechanics alone could have made trillions of universes. Surely if some gets hit by a bus, it's the bus, not the physics that did it. In the same vein, it's the particle/waves that would have enacted quantum mechanics. Isn't that how we know that they exist, because of being about the observe those particles?

You really are not paying attention at all are you? Every time you reply it's with questions that have already been answered. However ...

Re.1 (my numbers above for your questions/remarks) - it's utterly irrelevant whether you ask for 65% or p=0.35 or any other such number. Did you really not understand that? Scientists don't even claim that quantum theory is a proven 100% truth, let alone trying to put a probability figure on (say) Alan Guth's Inflationary model of the Big Bang. So what else do you want me to say about the model that I just presented to you for a so-called "Universe from Nothing" other than what I already described to you?

Re.2 Your sentence is completely incomprehensible in basic use of English Language. Is English your first or main language? … well, anyway -

... when you just claimed that "it HAD to be a creator being", you are stating that as is if it should be regarded as a fact of actual certainty ... when you write "it Had to be", that means it could not be anything else ... but you have precisely no evidence at all that any such creator (do you mean an intelligent being?) even exists in the first place ... and so far every attempt ever made to detect any such creator has turned out to show nothing of the kind, not even one micron of actual evidence at all .... overwhelming mountains of unarguable evidence for completely natural processes that were all once claimed to be certainly by just such a creator, ... but precisely zero evidence ever of anything remotely like your "creator" ....

... also I just told you 5 times in a row that science believes it would actually be impossible in this universe ever to show as you just asked for "100% fact", either for the model I just explained to you, or for any other model, theory, or explanation .... are you really so bereft of scientific education or understanding as to keep totally failing to understand that even when it's repeatedly explained to you in words of one syllable?

3. don't know what you asking for there at all.

4. Here you say (quite absurdly) "I'm interested though to hear how quantum mechanics alone could have made trillions of universes " ... well I just told you twice before, that QM doesn't make any universes!!. ... and yet you keep replying "well, how does it make a universe then?" ... Duh, I mean Come On, get real.

OK, seriously, and patiently (although it's now the third time) – please read again without bias that post where I explained why we probably do not have to ask where our universe “came” from or ask who or what created our universe, because there is a clear and obvious reason to think that it is likely to be eternal, i.e. that it has no option other than to exist (i.e. such that non-existence is simply not possible) … how likely is that to be true?; well as I say, I think most current research papers are headed in that direction so we have to wait and see what those researchers publish over the coming years … it will inevitably get refined and narrowed down further towards the most likely model, but as I also said before, it takes time to work out exactly what happened 13.8 billion years ago in a process as complex as a Big Bang universe formation …

… but one thing is for sure here – there are “no” genuine physicists/cosmologists/theoreticians working in this area of Big Bang cosmology, who actually believe that an intelligent creator caused the Big Bang … or at least none except perhaps some highly religious ones (mainly in the USA) who, despite their scientific credentials, still prefer to think they should say that their holy books must be true even though they were written 2000 years ago by religious nut cases who were by todays standards scientifically completely ignorant/uneducated about space and the nature of the universe that we can detect and study today.

[LarryS]

Full disclosure: I am not a Theist/Deist, however, I'll give a beginning shot at a defense, based on my knowing a few Theists / Deists.
First, when I say I know a "few" Theists I mean that literally, although I know many who claim to be believers, I am limiting my remarks to those who appear to wear the moniker in an authentic and natural manner.
To tie into the Pascal's Wager thread, I'll compare being a believer to the practice of dimming headlights while driving at night. Even if I dismiss any logical, legal or moral reasons that justify the practice of dimming lights - I could accept the 'wager' simply because the repeated cycle of dimming/brightening lights add a dimension to driving at night, the practice encourages awareness and engagement.
Likewise, being a Theist / Deist can add dimensions to life including: opportunities to express gratitude and reverence, a sense of purpose and meaning, connections to community, devotion to others, etc. These added dimensions are independant of any prolonged arguments re the logic and reasonability of Theism / Deism conducted by others (like in this thread).
I am not denying these added dimensions couldn't be added by other beliefs. I reckon we all employ this technique, we all accept 'wagers' - but Theists / Deists are honest in that they recognise what they belief is a belief.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Darat

Actually it isn’t - after all we have pretty concrete evidence for one of those things.

Well we have proof of the current existence of the universe, though none for a god/gods. The idea that the universe existed/will exist "forever" is unproven.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

One possibility anyway.

I rather like the idea of the universe being the result of a quantum fluctuation; a mass energy surplus expanding into nullity, matter condensing, stars and planets forming, life evolving and eventually collapsing again to repeat in a cycle of different sets of physical laws.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Anti-intellectuals are trying their best to turn being wrong into a virtue

It's distressingly popular with those suffering from religion.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Have you never looked into a baby's eyes? Seen the sunrise after a stormy night? Held a banana firmly in your hand? That's all the proof of God a man really needs.

(Sorry, I'm a sucker for the classics.)

Quote:

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Myriad

"Did God create the harmful viruses, diseases, parasites, and pests that have afflicted countless billions of people?
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God send that hurricane to destroy our city?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God give that child cancer?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God create the universe?"
"Of course! It's the simplest answer."

A little OT but

Originally Posted by David Attenborough ...

I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I was of course referring to the specific part of the Bible that tells us that the universe has a time of origin a finite time ago.

It doesn’t.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, no-one can prove that God doesn't exist, but if God did exist, there would be distinct signs in the physical world that we wouldn't see if God didn't exist. The complete lack of these signs is circumstantial evidence that God doesn't exist, and it allows us to draw a pretty firm conclusion.

And if a god doesn't leave signs, what advantage do we gain in believing that it exists? Clearly such a being does not manifest themself in the world, so there's no reason to believe that they are real.

Are you using “god” with the meaningless “something” definition or as “god” - the specific entity religions claim exists? If it is the second definition which specific god are you claiming can’t be proved doesn’t exist?

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Darat

It doesn’t.

Ok, I assume you have an alternate interpretation of the 2 sets of Genesis scriptures.

I'm interested in the rationale. I hope it's not simply allegory or metaphor.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

Ok, I assume you have an alternate interpretation of the 2 sets of Genesis scriptures.

I'm interested in the rationale. I hope it's not simply allegory or metaphor.

In Genesis the only thing God is said to create ex nihlio is light.

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Darat

In Genesis the only thing God is said to create ex nihlio is light.

So, when 1:1 says 'god created the heaven and the earth' is it his abode heaven or the physical heaven? Most take it as the physical, which means (to most) the creation of the universe (the heavens).

If you are convincing, I can believe in the Judeo-Christian god again, so be careful

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

So, when 1:1 says 'god created the heaven and the earth' is it his abode heaven or the physical heaven? Most take it as the physical, which means (to most) the creation of the universe (the heavens).

If you are convincing, I can believe in the Judeo-Christian god again, so be careful

The text doesn’t claim to be a history from the beginning of everything, it is an account of how god created the “heavens and earth” from already existing “stuff^*”. It is clear that this stuff existed before the creation of the earth, heavens and Dr Who, the only thing god creates from scratch - ex nihlio - is light, everything else is a reworking or separation of stuff that already existed.


*technical term

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Darat

The text doesn’t claim to be a history from the beginning of everything, it is an account of how god created the “heavens and earth” from already existing “stuff^*”. It is clear that this stuff existed before the creation of the earth, heavens and Dr Who, the only thing god creates from scratch - ex nihlio - is light, everything else is a reworking or separation of stuff that already existed.


*technical term

I think you are using the Bible's uncharacteristic lack of detail in this verse and filling in details in a way that supports your claim. Which is unusual for the Bible that otherwise overwhelms the reader with details and clarity that leaves little room for personal interpretation.

I guess it's just as easy to say the heavens and the earth were from existing stuff as it is to say it was created in toto from nothing.

I see your reasoning. Thanks for indulging me.

[Lithrael]

At least colloquially whenever we say ‘check out my latest creation!’ we never mean we snatched its constituents out of non-existence.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

I think you are using the Bible's uncharacteristic lack of detail in this verse and filling in details in a way that supports your claim. Which is unusual for the Bible that otherwise overwhelms the reader with details and clarity that leaves little room for personal interpretation.

I guess it's just as easy to say the heavens and the earth were from existing stuff as it is to say it was created in toto from nothing.

I see your reasoning. Thanks for indulging me.

It’s honestly not. It is actually looking at what the text says and correcting earlier wrongly translated texts.

For example the very first line is best rendered in English as : “In the beginning of God’s creating the skies and the earth...” not as most of us are used to seeing it with a subtle mistranslation as “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth....”. The earlier translators didn’t have the knowledge of the language we now have and did the best they could. With that in mind it then means the strangeness of the second line (in versions such as the KJ) no longer is strange and makes sense i.e. “when the earth had been shapeless and formless.....”. In other words when god started the creation of the earth and the skies/heavens he was working with something that already existed before he started. That is how we know the story the text tells us is not meant to be a recounting from the beginning of everything.

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

At least colloquially whenever we say ‘check out my latest creation!’ we never mean we snatched its constituents out of non-existence.

We never boast of creating matter/energy because we know we can't, thus we MUST mean something else.

This isn't god boasting of a lamp he built, but how everything came to be the way it is.

However, Biblical cosmology was way different than modern cosmology, so I guess it's conceivable the creation myth is as Darat says, rearranging stuff. Perhaps we are superimposing the modern cosmology and making the creation myth fit.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

At least colloquially whenever we say ‘check out my latest creation!’ we never mean we snatched its constituents out of non-existence.

Which is exactly the same as the bible (apart from light - god does apparently conjure that from thin air or out of his butt so to speak).

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

At least colloquially whenever we say ‘check out my latest creation!’ we never mean we snatched its constituents out of non-existence.

Do we have any examples of "non-existence"? Ie, as distinct from forming things out of matter and energy that already existed in some other form?

I am not trying to disagree with you by the way. I'm just trying to point out that afaik there is no example of truly "nothing" ever existing at all ... everything that exists has come from something else that already existed before (as far as we can tell/know).

In fact the whole idea of "nothingness" seems to have arisen thousands of years ago when people quite naturally believed that what seemed like "empty space" in the air all round us, was indeed empty with "nothing there". But then of course some centuries ago we discovered that what appeared to be empty space was actually filled with all sorts of invisible gasses. But people still thought that if you pumped all of that air out of some enclosed vessel, you would create a truly "empty space".

However, much more recently in an age of QM we have discovered that even if you could pump out 100% of all such gasses, the seemingly empty space would still be filled with all sorts of energy fields such as the electromagnetic field etc.

But what if we could remove all those fields as well? Well afaik the answer is that you can never actually do that, because that space itself is actually composed of those energy fields ... so if you took away all the energy fields then you would also remove/lose the space itself! There would be no space left!

It's not an easy or intuitively obvious concept I know, but the idea is that "Nothing" is not a possible state for any existence. You cannot have anything that actually exists as a piece of truly "Nothing". So the suggestion/conclusion is that "nothing" is not possible at all ... there must always be something ... and in the case of what existed prior to the Big Bang, that "Something" is a set of eternal energy fields which on average are constantly cancelling one-another out completely to zero. The reason we say that they cancel to zero, is that surprisingly perhaps, it turns out that it's quite easy to sum up all the various types of energy in the universe that act in opposing ways to one-another, and it turns out that the total of positive acting energy is exactly equal to the opposing mass of negative acting energy ... i.e. the overall sum total of all matter and energy in our universe adds up to precisely Zero!!

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Darat

It’s honestly not. It is actually looking at what the text says and correcting earlier wrongly translated texts.

For example the very first line is best rendered in English as : “In the beginning of God’s creating the skies and the earth...” not as most of us are used to seeing it with a subtle mistranslation as “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth....”. The earlier translators didn’t have the knowledge of the language we now have and did the best they could. With that in mind it then means the strangeness of the second line (in versions such as the KJ) no longer is strange and makes sense i.e. “when the earth had been shapeless and formless.....”. In other words when god started the creation of the earth and the skies/heavens he was working with something that already existed before he started. That is how we know the story the text tells us is not meant to be a recounting from the beginning of everything.

We apparently posted at the same time, and I missed your thorough reply.

This is a bit in line with what I was saying about Biblical/Jewish cosmology at the time. Their concept was basically a flat earth under a dome. So it's reasonable that it is an accounting of how the writers viewed things and modelled scripture to fit.

A formless/shapeless earth being changed to a earth/bubble, as I said, fits with what you are saying and clearly fits the scripture.

But this concept of cosmology doesn't match reality. Which cause the scriptures to not directly and unequivocally fit the reality.

So it becomes an exercise of fitting the scripture to reality. Which means adding elements / interpretations or adjusting translation/meanings that fit the desired result.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Full disclosure: I am not a Theist/Deist, however, I'll give a beginning shot at a defense, based on my knowing a few Theists / Deists.
First, when I say I know a "few" Theists I mean that literally, although I know many who claim to be believers, I am limiting my remarks to those who appear to wear the moniker in an authentic and natural manner.
To tie into the Pascal's Wager thread, I'll compare being a believer to the practice of dimming headlights while driving at night. Even if I dismiss any logical, legal or moral reasons that justify the practice of dimming lights - I could accept the 'wager' simply because the repeated cycle of dimming/brightening lights add a dimension to driving at night, the practice encourages awareness and engagement.
Likewise, being a Theist / Deist can add dimensions to life including: opportunities to express gratitude and reverence, a sense of purpose and meaning, connections to community, devotion to others, etc. These added dimensions are independant of any prolonged arguments re the logic and reasonability of Theism / Deism conducted by others (like in this thread).
I am not denying these added dimensions couldn't be added by other beliefs. I reckon we all employ this technique, we all accept 'wagers' - but Theists / Deists are honest in that they recognise what they belief is a belief.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

And if a god doesn't leave signs, what advantage do we gain in believing that it exists? Clearly such a being does not manifest themself in the world, so there's no reason to believe that they are real.

I keep thinking of a story I've heard in several forms. A desperate alcoholic knows he's killing himself and hurting people around him, but can't stop. He's not particularly religious but maybe not a straight-up atheist. He doesn't believe in a benevolent god that loves him personally. One day he says to himself, kind of disgruntled, "OK, God. If you exist, and can help me, send me a sign." Just then a bus drives by with a huge sign: "Struggling with alcohol? There is hope!" with a toll-free number.

Such an event can set someone on the road of believing in the efficacy of prayer even if they don't believe in God. The person in the anecdote may go on praying because they get such offbeat "answers." A lot of members here seem to think that people who pray are doing so instead of taking more-mundane practical steps, but that's not how I mean it. As a practice that can heighten focus or intuition, there's a rational reason to do it. I *don't* mean parents praying instead of taking their sick kid to the doctor.

There may be a practical reason to behave as if there's a God who hears prayers. For such people it's probably a shorter hop to adopting deistic or theistic beliefs. I've never understood faith even though at times I've wanted to feel it. But saying a prayer is a concrete action, unlike belief.

[Lithrael]

Much like the physical act of smiling can cajole your subconscious into a slightly improved mood, I imagine the act of prayer can make your subconscious feel like you’ve had a positive interaction with a high status friend and so cajole it into a slightly improved mood. Even more so a prayer that coincides with some remarkable outcome.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Lupus

Why being a deist at the minimum is the only thing you can be, in point form[list][*]Universe begins[*]Came out of nothing[*]A CONTRADICTION

Originally Posted by Delvo

When religious people say that we have proof/certainty/whatever that the universe has a time of origin a finite amount of time ago, they usually say that's the Big Bang. But here we have somebody saying the finite-time-ago thing also saying that the Big Bang is wrong. Without the Big Bang, what else is there to tell us that the universe has a time of origin a finite amount of time ago?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The Bible.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Well just the parts that don't contradict the other parts.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I was of course referring to the specific part of the Bible that tells us that the universe has a time of origin a finite time ago.

That wouldn't fit the context we have here.

I'm sure there are Creationists who say Creationism is right because the Bible says so, but Lupus does not appear to be that kind of Creationist. Lupus presented the "universe begins" point as if expecting that that's what other people already think, and has since then been talking about various scientific concepts, trying to support Creationism through a link with science. That kind of Creationist's usual "universe begins" point is the Big Bang. But Lupus also argues against the Big Bang. So what else would be "universe begins" point in this situation? What sciency, non-Biblical explanation is everybody expected to accept that isn't the Big Bang?

[Lupus]

@Delvo
Big Bang unfortunately is the best theory there currently is for the creation of the Universe. The half-blind man is king in the city of the blind. The idea that the whole universe could fit into a tiny ball is ridiculous. It also break the laws of physics with space travelling faster than the speed of light. I don't actually know what the real way God would have created it is, so I begrudgingly accept Big Bang for now.

Originally Posted by Chanakya

All of that presupposes that "He" has a "mind", intelligence, consciousness.

My question was, Why do you assume the Creative Principle, the prime mover, should there be such a thing, has consciousness at all?

And my other question was, does that assumption not raise far more questions than it seeks to answer, starting with where and how such an intelligent creating force popped out of in the force; as well as how it came by the power, the ability, the capacity, to create stuff. If you're going to throw up your hands and shrug that question away, why wouldn't you do that with the original question itself, about the (ultimate) origin of the universe?

You can go right ahead and start a new thread on that subject if you wish, referencing your previous post. Like I said, that would give you the chance to test your ideas with astronomy geeks who are far better informed than I am on astronomy. And it might provide the rest of us with an interesting read.

Because creating the world takes will. Since he had to have willed it into existence he'd need to have at least a partial mind. The answer to the first created question is that he had no start but existed forever. I don't know how he got that power/ability. Because I don't need to know how, like I don't need to know whether his name is Yahweh or Allah or whatever it may be.
For this thread, the Axis of Evil is an important coincidence that gives more credence to God.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Lupus

The idea that the whole universe could fit into a tiny ball is ridiculous.

Not a tiny ball. A smaller spacetime. Also, the stuff fitting into the smaller spacetime is different from the stuff that emerged from it as that spacetime expanded. Kind of like how fire extinguisher foam is somewhat different, and a lot more voluminous, than the stuff stored inside the fire extinguisher under pressure.

Quote:

It also break the laws of physics with space travelling faster than the speed of light.

You are wrong about this. The neat thing about the expansion of spacetime is that it's not bound by the speed constraint on particles, and doesn't actually break any physical laws. It's actually quite consistent with the physical laws we've observed and tested.

A misunderstanding of science is a terrible basis for believing in god.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Lupus

Big Bang unfortunately is the best theory there currently is for the creation of the Universe.

It isn't even a theory for the creation of the universe, nevermind best or worst or 7th out of 24 or whatever.

It's a theory about the earliest state/event that we can trace back to from the available evidence. It has nothing to say about the origin of that state.

Originally Posted by Lupus

The half-blind man is king in the city of the blind... I don't actually know what the real way God would have created it is, so I begrudgingly accept Big Bang for now.

You say you do, but you keep attacking it. That's no accepting it. And if your attacks against it represent what you really actually thing about it, then you can't use an argument that's based on it as one of its premises. So out the window goes your "universe begins" thing.

Originally Posted by Lupus

The idea that the whole universe could fit into a tiny ball is ridiculous.

Why? The exclusion principle (the thing that prevents two things from being in the same place at the same time) only applies to some kinds of particles, and those aren't the ones that would be present at extremely high temperature & energy-density. Without the exclusion principle, there's no obstacle to any amount of compression (at least not unless, under such extreme conditions, space-time starts doing something we can't anticipate or describe yet).

Originally Posted by Lupus

It also break the laws of physics with space travelling faster than the speed of light.

There is no law of physics against that, either.

Originally Posted by Lupus

Because creating the world takes will.

Why?

Originally Posted by Lupus

The answer to the first created question is that he had no start but existed forever.

So why can't the universe? Or something else which by nature resulted in this universe as a simple matter of mindless cause & effect?

[Bikewer]

As I recall reading in one of Asimov’s books on physics... There is no upward limit on either temperature or density of energy.
At the time the “Bang”, there were no particles, no matter... Only energy in a hugely dense and hot state.
Why this situation maintained is as yet unknown.

If you’re going to invoke some sort of divine being to cause this... It’s always seemed to me a rather inefficient way to go. If we posit an “omnipotent” being... Why not just snap those cosmic fingers and “poof!”.... Nice universe, all finished.
Why create a tiny spot of dense, hot energy and then wait billions of years for anything interesting to happen? In our case, almost the entire 14 billion year history of the universe.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

As I recall reading in one of Asimov’s books on physics... There is no upward limit on either temperature or density of energy.
At the time the “Bang”, there were no particles, no matter... Only energy in a hugely dense and hot state.
Why this situation maintained is as yet unknown.

If you’re going to invoke some sort of divine being to cause this... It’s always seemed to me a rather inefficient way to go. If we posit an “omnipotent” being... Why not just snap those cosmic fingers and “poof!”.... Nice universe, all finished.
Why create a tiny spot of dense, hot energy and then wait billions of years for anything interesting to happen? In our case, almost the entire 14 billion year history of the universe.

You know the answer.........”mysterious ways”.

Seems “what” a god does can be determined beyond any doubt, buy “why” will be forever hidden.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Lupus

... Because creating the world takes will. Since he had to have willed it into existence he'd need to have at least a partial mind.

We seem to be going around in circles. On what basis -- whether scientific, or philosophical, or religious -- do you insist that creating the world necessarily takes will?

Quote:

The answer to the first created question is that he had no start but existed forever.

In which case, as others have pointed out, why shouldn't the universe itself be taken to be eternal (whether in approximately the form we see it now, or "fields", or the foam thing -- I confess I'm out of my depth with this kind of thing, but still -- or whatever?

Quote:

I don't know how he got that power/ability. Because I don't need to know how, like I don't need to know whether his name is Yahweh or Allah or whatever it may be.
For this thread, the Axis of Evil is an important coincidence that gives more credence to God.

Seems to be that would be OT. Not that I, personally, mind, if the mods should let it stand. Fine, if people who know about this Axis of Evil business -- it's an astronomical thing, apparently -- wish to come in with their inputs, great then, let's see where that takes us.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Lupus

@Delvo
Big Bang unfortunately is the best theory there currently is for the creation of the Universe. The half-blind man is king in the city of the blind. The idea that the whole universe could fit into a tiny ball is ridiculous. It also break the laws of physics with space travelling faster than the speed of light. I don't actually know what the real way God would have created it is, so I begrudgingly accept Big Bang for now.



Because creating the world takes will. Since he had to have willed it into existence he'd need to have at least a partial mind. The answer to the first created question is that he had no start but existed forever. I don't know how he got that power/ability. Because I don't need to know how, like I don't need to know whether his name is Yahweh or Allah or whatever it may be.
For this thread, the Axis of Evil is an important coincidence that gives more credence to God.

Why are you "begrudging" about believing the Big Bang probably did happen?

Look - the only reason that you know anything at all about any Big Bang, is because about 60 years ago (or whenever it was), various scientists working in fields like astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and theoretical/mathematical physics, started to publish research data showing that there was good reason to conclude that the universe we detect all around us today i.e. planets, stars, galaxies etc. probably began as a much smaller volume of space many billions of years in the past ...

... and since then, a lot of actual measurable detectable evidence has been found to support those initial ideas. And a great deal more high-level maths has since been worked-out, all of which shows that the Big Bang explanation is extremely likely to be correct.

But when you write about it, constantly doubting it, you are writing as if you think the Big Bang is just some sort of idea or weakly reasoned belief that scientists have. Well ... scientists don't work in that way by mere "ideas" or "beliefs" ... the models and explanations that scientists give, come from actual published research. And you cannot publish such research papers in core science unless your paper shows genuine convincing testable evidence, or genuine rigorous mathematical calculations & conclusions ... anything less than that simply will not make it past the peer review process or past the editorial board for publication.

So when you say that you "begrudgingly accept it", why do you think you know better than all the countless thousands of scientific specialists working in those fields who all agree that our current model of the Big Bang is almost certainly correct, even if various smaller details are debated as to whether certain aspects/events happened in a particular way or whether they were a smaller or bigger contribution to various parts of the process ... why do you think that you know better than they all do? ... on what basis are you refusing to accept their expertise? ... IOW, since they all say it's almost certainly true, what is your own specialist expertise that allows you to reasonably or credibly doubt what all of them are telling you?

As for you saying that "The idea that the whole universe could fit into a tiny ball is ridiculous" ... that is not any scientists idea. That appears to be just your complete misunderstanding of what those scientists are saying. And I've already explained that to you several times now. The current observed universe is not being "fitted within" a "tiny ball" ... what all of science points to is the likelihood that 13.8 billion years ago the universe consisted of a set incredibly dense (i.e. compact) energy fields ... which ultimately reacted with one-another to cause an almost instantaneous massive conversion of the energy into what we detect as a rapidly inflating Space-time that we now call the Big Bang (and I've already described to you in some detail how and why that happens).

Just as an analogy, you could think of it like any common typical phase change from solid to gas ... the solid phase is by comparison extremely compact, whereas the gas phase is far less dense and instead occupies a huge volume. The same sort of thing happens in an atomic explosion such as we saw at the end or WW2 - a relatively very small amount of solid radioactive material can be changed almost instantly into a huge mass/volume of rapidly expanding gas, particles, and heat.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by IanS

Why are you "begrudging" about believing the Big Bang probably did happen?

Snipped for brevity only.

A good concise, summary. I appreciate you posting this.

[theprestige]

Lupus, if you understand the science and decide to believe in god anyway for other reasons, fine with me.

But it looks like your belief in god is based on you misunderstanding the science. This is a terrible reason to believe.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Lupus

@Delvo
Big Bang unfortunately is the best theory there currently is for the creation of the Universe.

Why do the religious insist on repeating this lie? BBT says exactly nothing about the origin of the universe.

But for some reason that remains unexplained, theists continue to perpetuate this LIE.

Fine. So long as they continue to lie, I will continue to point out such obvious lies.

It's a fair bet that apologists will continue to propagate these lies anyway.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Why do the religious insist on repeating this lie? BBT says exactly nothing about the origin of the universe.

To be fair, the BBT does saying something about the beginning of The Universe as it currently exists, but nothing about the origin of existence before the BBT, or if existence ever even had an origin. I can understand confusing origin with beginning.

ETA - Mind you, I just noticed Lupus said "creation", which is a different concept altogether. So I guess your call is fair after all. Perhaps you would've been more correct to say "BBT says exactly nothing about the creation of The Universe"?

[IanS]

Lupus – have a look at the YouTube links below showing interviews with Alex Vilenkin and Alan Guth, who are explaining in quite simple terms most of what I have described to you in the replies above -

- the first link (1, below) is a very quick simple explanation from Alex Vilenkin -

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

In the next link Vilenkin talks more in depth about how his paper (several papers in the 1980's) explained the possibility of our universe appearing from “Nothing”. Where by “nothing” he means (as I already described to you) no space, no matter, and no time (and in fact not even a vaccuum state is neeeded) -

2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CChnwOsg9I


Vilenkin was not at that time (ie circa 1980), and today is still not, the only theoretical physcist who thinks a model such as this is quite likely to be close to the correct explantion for why our universe exists (ie explaining how and why the Big Bang not only happened, but also why it had no choice except to happen). More recently (in 2003) Vilenkin wrote an influentual paper on this with Alan Guth who is the orginator of so-called “Inflation” as a model for the first stage of the Big Bang. Below are a couple of links to Alan Guth similarly explaining how our universe can appear from what is essentially “nothing” -

3 Simple description from Alan Guth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv4Ikye9PS8


4 More in depth explanation from Alan Guth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I


Finally – in 2007 Vilenkin wrote a simple, short & very clearly written book explaining in laymans language/terms what was contained in that paper with Alan Guth (and a 3rd author named Arvin Borde) -

Book from Vilenkin explaining the above -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Many-Worlds...2734208&sr=8-1