(August 21, 2023 at 1:40 am)Barry Wrote:

(August 21, 2023 at 1:36 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Considering all you have is claims it was made by a god this statement is pretty empty.


Who's living in blissful ignorance? And no one is upset at being questioned. 



Yup, and you have failed to provide any evidence of that statement and pointing to the universe is not evidence.



It's not denial it's pointing out the fact that's not evidence of god 
 


Yes it is fair as that is not evidence of god 



With the fact, you have not supported your claim.


A group of people who are  unconvinced of the claim a god exists 


Nope, it already makes sense.

But you still haven’t answered the main question of life. How does the quote function work? You seem to be an expert with it.
I’ve asked God but even God isn’t telling me.
Cheers Barry

If the quote button doesn't work I just use the reply button and the insert quote button( the quote balloon button on the third from the top right) then I just copy and paste the thing I am replying to then I write my response under the quote.

(August 20, 2023 at 7:53 pm)Barry Wrote:

(August 20, 2023 at 5:24 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Also, did humans choose freewill, or was freewill imposed on them by god? If so the god is still responsible for sin.

If we didn’t have free will, we would be robots
Cheers Barry

When does free will start?

I was forced to be born. 

I was forced where to be born and I had no choice of parents. 


So when does free will start?

Freewill doesn't exist. We are organic robots.

(August 20, 2023 at 7:53 pm)Barry Wrote:

(August 20, 2023 at 5:24 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Also, did humans choose freewill, or was freewill imposed on them by god? If so the god is still responsible for sin.

If we didn’t have free will, we would be robots
Cheers Barry

How are you not robots in heaven?


You haven’t the free will to leave heaven, right?

(August 21, 2023 at 12:16 am)Barry Wrote:

(August 20, 2023 at 11:58 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: In your worldview, all that exists is an accident of god.

Good?  An accident of whatever god is or isn't.

Existence, an accident of whatever god did or didn't want.  

Think about it.

This forum exists because you do.  Because the worldview you represent is active in reality even if the god you believe in isn't.  

(you ready to tell us how goddidit, or no?)

Hi O grand one
“Howgodditit?”. Simple, God can do anything. 
But let’s say I’m wrong, you are all good at that. Tell me how the universe began without a creator. If you can do that you can write a very successful book. 
I’m so amazed you can all be so adamant how wrong I am or demanding of proof. It’s not my fault the universe exists and none of you seem to know why. And say I have to prove it. 
The Universe exists. How? Why? Telling me I’m wrong doesn’t give you any answers. All gathering together in a forum of disbelief/unbelief/ignorance seems a poor way to do anything useful for the world. Ok, you can attack me. But it doesn’t make the world a better place, perhaps it makes you feel good. 
My big question is, how do I use the quote function? The forum guidelines encourage me to do so, but I’m so dumb I can’t work it out. 
God loves you
Barry

It isn't necessarily the case that the universe was created by God, therefore the universe is not evidence that God exists. That's the problem Barry, and all this talk about what we won't do is just a red herring.

Whether God, or the physical reality, or the infinite chain of cause and effect, or the laws that can bring universes into being etc, something has always had to have been. And I can't see what would make one more or less likely or absurd than another. All seem to be absurd brute facts.

So why not just say that physicalist reality has always been? We all agree it currently exists, why posit another unnecessary unknown that solves nothing?

(August 21, 2023 at 9:11 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Whether God, or the physical reality, or the infinite chain of cause and effect, or the laws that can bring universes into being etc, something has always had to have been.  And I can't see what would make one more or less likely or absurd than another.  All seem to be absurd brute facts.

A lonely particular universe with a particular set of initial constants, as a brute fact, seems quite absurd. A multiverse of universes, as a brute fact, may still sound absurd but would be less so. I think it's because there is less of the particularity/arbitrariness to answer for.

When it comes to God vs. one particular universe, it does seem like God as a brute fact makes more sense because God is seen as non-particular/non-arbitrary in nature, or at least less so compared to one lonely universe.

But then you still run into the problem of why this particular universe anyway, even with God existing and God causing this universe to exist. So it's not really a win for the theist.

A universe that occurs by chance is arbitrary. A god that just exists is equally arbitrary. I think the problem is more one of expecting answers to come from places that they cannot come.

(August 21, 2023 at 9:35 am)GrandizerII Wrote:

(August 21, 2023 at 9:11 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Whether God, or the physical reality, or the infinite chain of cause and effect, or the laws that can bring universes into being etc, something has always had to have been.  And I can't see what would make one more or less likely or absurd than another.  All seem to be absurd brute facts.

A lonely particular universe with a particular set of initial constants, as a brute fact, seems quite absurd. A multiverse of universes, as a brute fact, may still sound absurd but would be less so. I think it's because there is less of the particularity/arbitrariness to answer for.

When it comes to God vs. one particular universe, it does seem like God as a brute fact makes more sense because God is seen as non-particular/non-arbitrary in nature, or at least less so compared to one lonely universe.

But then you still run into the problem of why this particular universe anyway, even with God existing and God causing this universe to exist. So it's not really a win for the theist.

When you say that God's nature is non-arbitrary I assume you are appealing to the idea that God's nature is necessary. But I'm not convinced that necessary existence is a coherent idea. And if it is, I don't see why it would apply to an agent more than to a physical state of being. Nor do I think it makes sense to talk about degrees of absurdity (but I'm not sure on this).

So I don't see a brute universe/multiverse or a brute God as different in terms of absurdity.

(August 21, 2023 at 9:39 am)FrustratedFool Wrote:

(August 21, 2023 at 9:35 am)GrandizerII Wrote: A lonely particular universe with a particular set of initial constants, as a brute fact, seems quite absurd. A multiverse of universes, as a brute fact, may still sound absurd but would be less so. I think it's because there is less of the particularity/arbitrariness to answer for.

When it comes to God vs. one particular universe, it does seem like God as a brute fact makes more sense because God is seen as non-particular/non-arbitrary in nature, or at least less so compared to one lonely universe.

But then you still run into the problem of why this particular universe anyway, even with God existing and God causing this universe to exist. So it's not really a win for the theist.

When you say that God's nature is non-arbitrary I assume you are appealing to the idea that God's nature is necessary.  But I'm not convinced that necessary existence is a coherent idea.  And if it is, I don't see why it would apply to an agent more than to a physical state of being.  Nor do I think it makes sense to talk about degrees of absurdity (but I'm not sure on this).

So I don't see a brute universe/multiverse or a brute God as different in terms of absurdity.

Nah, I'm referring to what Christians believe regarding God, in that it is at least remarkably very simple, if not absolutely so. According to Thomists, God is so simple that any property of God is one and the same as God. It has no parts, basically. And so it has nothing particular about it. Or at least nothing like the particularity of this local universe.*

Positing such a being as necessarily existing may intuitively follow, but it's not really about necessary here anyway. We can assume that there is no such thing as necessary existence, and the point would still stand.

* Let's overlook the fact that Christians also somehow believe this God is triune; pretend the Trinity isn't a thing.