Dear Resident Theists

[loganonekenobi]

"We will never be in a position to detect another universe nor to rule them out. Doesn't mean they're not there however."

How does this acceptance of other universes differ from accepting the possibility of a Deity?  It can easily be argued that we will never be in a position to detect God or rule God out, doesn't mean God isn't there however.  I'm not talking a personal God at this point, just the possibility of a Deity, by using the same logic you provided here.

Belief in an entity that caused our reality is fine to me. I understand that is deism right? The problem arises in history both past and recent when theist use this possible entity to lay down laws for others. Uses this to kill others in it's name. Forces others to accept (and yes it still happens today just with indocrination of children instead of the threat of death) their version of this entity.
That is what this post is about if I am understanding things right.
I see this in these forum ALOT. The theist will say "see God does exist because you can't explain where this all came from." but in the same breath they will say "so why cant you accept my version of this God instead of the hundreds of other versions of this god?"
It may be that an ultimate entity made all this. we may never know. however, i think it absolute arrogance to think that the creator of this vast reality cares about you or me so much as to worry about our choice in it's belief or even better if we give in to our sexual desire and spill our seed on the ground.
Maybe my idea of god is too vast to be troubled to have someone write about itself. It certainly wouldn't need our worship or even want it. It wouldn't pick just one set of people to favor over others on a tiny rock that just happen to support life.
I'll say it again...arrogance...

[Cephus]

"We will never be in a position to detect another universe nor to rule them out. Doesn't mean they're not there however."

How does this acceptance of other universes differ from accepting the possibility of a Deity?  It can easily be argued that we will never be in a position to detect God or rule God out, doesn't mean God isn't there however.  I'm not talking a personal God at this point, just the possibility of a Deity, by using the same logic you provided here.

It doesn't mean that God is there either.  It also doesn't mean that unicorns aren't there or leprechauns or magical fairies.  Do you believe in those things too?  After all, you have no less reason to accept all of those things are real than you do  to believe in any gods.

[Ronkonkoma]

Most things happen because of a cause.[...]

Well - if "most things" happen "because of a cause", that means not all things have a cause. Why can't Big Bang be one of those few things, that - as you claim - don't have a cause?

Who said I'm 100% precise in my choice of words. I'm just like you, trying to figure things out. Should I have said all things have a cause? In science, the word "all" we use with caution. But I am not a scientist. I'm a doctor. And I realize that one of the most painful things in life is seeing no reason for events, as though we were pawns in the cruel tides of entropy. Nevertheless, even without any background in philosophy or religion, it can be reasoned that most things in life have a cause, so its is likely to think that all things have a cause. We are human beings with an incredible capacity to search for a cause. It is our job to find it.

---

Most things happen because of a cause. Science is always looking for a cause. The more answers we get, the more questions come up. To say the big bang had no cause is like giving up on science.

And that might be an option because the big bang is the beginning of space and time, and our scientific method fails when we go beyond space and time. Beyond that, we go into philosophy.


Or we can propose other sci-fi versions of reality like multiple universes. Who knows?

But then if you say god did it then you have to account for a cause to God. If you say god had no cause then why not use occams razor and slice out God entirely and say the universe had no cause?

I don't know what Ocam's razor is. I use gilette. I did not mention God. All I said was a cause beyond space and time, above matter. It seems to me that some astronomers are faced with a great problem. In the past twenty years hey have become confronted with the possibility of the existence of God, based on their work. So they go to great lengths to circumvent that.  Why does Stephen Hawkins talk so much about God? Because his wife is Christian? Or because he himself proved that time had a beginning. He has problems dealing with the implications of his own work. He must have interesting conversations with his wife.

---

Most things happen because of a cause. Science is always looking for a cause. The more answers we get, the more questions come up. To say the big bang had no cause is like giving up on science.

And that might be an option because the big bang is the beginning of space and time, and our scientific method fails when we go beyond space and time. Beyond that, we go into philosophy.

I agree that what takes place beyond the level of the universe of which we are a part certainly seems beyond the reach of science at this point, and quite likely for all time.  Perhaps someone will propose an indicator which would be, for theoretical reasons, an indicator of a multiverse.  I don't know, but I doubt there will ever be an entirely satisfying conclusion which will convince all parties.

So we can call the alternatives philosophy but really, aren't we just spitballing possibilities?  What I think you really must give up saying is that the universe, space and time had a beginning before which there was absolutely nothing.  There is no more reason for thinking that than for thinking there is a multiverse or for thinking something supernatural.  

Nothing is the one thing we can all rule out.  There was never nothing.  As far back as we can investigate, there are always pre-existing conditions which meld with what follows.  (That was what I wished to imply by the 'turtles all the way down' analogy.)  Even if you choose to believe time, space and everything had a beginning, you still believe there was a God capable of bringing all that into being.  So you really do not believe in a true nothingness.

Or we can propose other sci-fi versions of reality like multiple universes. Who knows?

Indeed, who?  Not me.  Not you.  But we are all free to speculate.  For me it is impossible to imagine that there is not a level of description -perhaps with its own timeline- wherein big bangs are a dime a dozen and their expansion and contraction are like a big pile of frothy bubbles.  That anything happens in isolation is beyond the power of my imagination.

Sure, and that's great to speculate, also it's very interesting to think about what's out there. And even what's in here in our twisted little minds. For example, did you consider the vast expanse of space inside our atoms? It seems like the more we zoom in, in the more the scenery begins to resemble the vast expanse of outer space!

Either way, we have to go on living. Should I get up this morning? Why? Why do good when its more convenient to do evil? Are there good and evil? And who is to define it?.... We need answers to these now, and science might be great for that, the only problem is that it is very very SLOOOOW. And our lives are short. So we do in fact need philosophy to answer these. Philosophy is supposed to be reasonable. Reason is a tool we have other than science. Religion itself should be reasonable, and it should fit with science.

[Whateverist]

"We will never be in a position to detect another universe nor to rule them out. Doesn't mean they're not there however."

How does this acceptance of other universes differ from accepting the possibility of a Deity?  It can easily be argued that we will never be in a position to detect God or rule God out, doesn't mean God isn't there however.  I'm not talking a personal God at this point, just the possibility of a Deity, by using the same logic you provided here.

Assuming you think a deity is something supernatural, there you go: difference #1.

Difference #2: there is no implications for our lives if no other universe exists or if they are infinite in number.

Difference #3: the existence of what is natural at a greater scale than that of which we are or can be aware is not at all a supernatural idea.  The impossibility of knowing a thing is hardly reason to classify it as supernatural.

[Ronkonkoma]

Most things happen because of a cause. Science is always looking for a cause. The more answers we get, the more questions come up. To say the big bang had no cause is like giving up on science.

And that might be an option because the big bang is the beginning of space and time, and our scientific method fails when we go beyond space and time. Beyond that, we go into philosophy.


Or we can propose other sci-fi versions of reality like multiple universes. Who knows?

But then if you say god did it then you have to account for a cause to God. If you say god had no cause then why not use occams razor and slice out God entirely and say the universe had no cause?

Ah ok, I get your point now. The cause for God wouldn't have to be accounted for because only things that are limited by time need to have a cause. In other words, by logic the universe probably has a cause because it had a beginning. Because the cause of the universe is beyond space and time, we can very well think of it as ETERNAL. As such, it might very well be the end of our search for a cause. What if we finally found what we were looking for??? In addition, being immaterial and transcending time, that original "cause" can and be omnipresent. That cause can also be omniscient since the immense complexity and MASSIVE logic behind the universe is a reflection of its "cause". But I have to stop there because I'm beginning to sound like a theologian. And I'm not. Yet.

[Whateverist]

Sure, and that's great to speculate, also it's very interesting to think about what's out there. And even what's in here in our twisted little minds. For example, did you consider the vast expanse of space inside our atoms? It seems like the more we zoom in, in the more the scenery begins to resemble the vast expanse of outer space!

Agreed. I think it is less intuitive to think of space as having either an upper or lower limit of scale. Having the means to image beyond a certain level is not a reason to set aside this basic intuition.

Either way, we have to go on living. Should I get up this morning? Why? Why do good when its more convenient to do evil?

Surely you do not think it might be more convenient to do evil if only you could elude the long arm of the god? Do you find yourself beset by evil impulses which you must constantly be on guard against? I don't. Caring about others is in our nature, going against that should be hard.

Are there good and evil? And who is to define it?.... We need answers to these now, and science might be great for that, the only problem is that it is very very SLOOOOW. And our lives are short.

I don't think science has any role to play where morality is concerned. More often, science provides us with more power to do incidental or unintended harm. If or when we ever reach moral agreement and achieve the political conviction to something about it, science may help us match means to ends. But morally, science is neutral.

So we do in fact need philosophy to answer these. Philosophy is supposed to be reasonable. Reason is a tool we have other than science. Religion itself should be reasonable, and it should fit with science.

Couldn't agree more with the part I bolded. I personally get bored discussing religion with apologists who think they have to explain away bits of science as being in conflict with their theology. Evolution should pose no problem. Big bangs should pose no problem. And neither should a multiverse or abiogenesis pose an obstacle to an adequate theology.

I do think there is a reason for God belief and I don't oppose it even though I don't embrace it either. At the very least how and why it arises nearly everywhere and at all times makes it an interesting question.

[Whateverist]

Where did everybody go? Kingy? Ronkykoma? Chadmeister?

[Neo-Scholastic]

"We will never be in a position to detect another universe nor to rule them out. Doesn't mean they're not there however."

How does this acceptance of other universes differ from accepting the possibility of a Deity?  It can easily be argued that we will never be in a position to detect God or rule God out, doesn't mean God isn't there however.  I'm not talking a personal God at this point, just the possibility of a Deity, by using the same logic you provided here.

Assuming you think a deity is something supernatural, there you go: difference #1.

Difference #2: there is no implications for our lives if no other universe exists or if they are infinite in number.

Difference #3: the existence of what is natural at a greater scale than that of which we are or can be aware is not at all a supernatural idea.  The impossibility of knowing a thing is hardly reason to classify it as supernatural.

Obj 1: Other universes would presumably be as 'natural' as this one, whereas the meta-laws governing the generation of them would be supernatural, because the prefix super means above.I.e a higher level of order.

Obj 2: The presumption that people are biological robots in meaningless universe of randomly selected order...I would say that has profound implications for living.

Obj 3: Straw man. No one is claiming that what has an unknown cause proves a supernatural one. The a metaphysical first cause has already been deduced. It is only natural to associate it with the divine role of Creator.

[Whateverist]

Obj to Obj 1: Every classification above that of a species -family, order, phylum, etc- is at a higher level of order. Does that make them supernatural?

Obj to Obj 2: Who said anything about robots? (That does not compute.)

Obj to Obj 3: How come I wasn't informed? Do we actually have a specimen, dead or alive, of a metaphysical first cause? Only 'natural' to associate it with the divine/supernatural? I see what you did there. Just because a thing is funny does not make it true.

[Rhondazvous]

Well - if "most things" happen "because of a cause", that means not all things have a cause. Why can't Big Bang be one of those few things, that - as you claim - don't have a cause?

Dammit Nutter ...Leave the guys some wiggle room to shove God in somewhere at least! geez!  

Who says BB didn't have a cause? Just because god was not the cause doesn't mean there was none.

If god had no beginning then at what point in entity did he create the universe. Only atoms vibrating an affecting one another can change and bring about change. An eternal god that never changes cannot be a cause.