Am I a Deist? Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to me.

[Angrboda]

So...  all you need to break the laws of nature is stuff from a different universe.  That's a hefty assumption.

Well the stuff we know its already breaking down badly when we get really really close to big bang, so I think its a reasonable assumption to think that on a different universe things might be different, and its not breaking the laws if the laws are innate to our conditions of universe, it would only apply to other universes if those also had all conditions of our universe, and they might not do so.

It makes no more sense to think things would be different than to think that they would be the same. Matter of fact, it makes more sense to think they would be the same. Regardless, they would have to be different in a special way. Capable of doing magical things, and capable of doing those magical things inside our space. That's a pretty specific set of 'different'.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imagining that "stuff from other universes" does stuff in -this- universe is actually imagining that it follows the rules and laws of -this- universe.  How else would it persist or interact? OP wants it to be capable of magic in this universe, which is to say capable of breaking the rules OP insists upon...

Why couldn't something magical be from this universe, if it's only function is to break one rule (say, that everything must have a cause) but it has to follow all the others..why source it from somewhere else? If magic from another universe can exist in our universe and effect our universe, then it must be possible for magic from -our- universe to exist here and do the same as well.

I really don't know what the point of all of this is.

[_Velvet_]

It makes no more sense to think things would be different than to think that they would be the same.  Matter of fact, it makes more sense to think they would be the same.  Regardless, they would have to be different in a special way.  Capable of doing magical things, and capable of doing those magical things inside our space.  That's a pretty specific set of 'different'.

Well from what we know we have no reason to believe other universes would have the same conditions that would end up forming the same laws that we observe on our universe... but it might be the case, maybe even our universe has events that generate universes of other kinds and we don't even notice that, who knows?

But no, they don't need to be different in a special way to do magical things, all things that don't follow what we do have here are already "magic"...

And i'm not proposing those things are done INSIDE our space, instead they caused our space.

---

Imagining that "stuff from other universes" does stuff in -this- universe is actually imagining that it follows the rules and laws of -this- universe.  How else would it persist or interact?  OP wants it to be capable of magic in this universe, which is to say capable of breaking the rules OP insists upon...

Why couldn't something magical be from this universe, if it's only function is to break one rule (say, that everything must have a cause) but it has to follow all the others..why source it from somewhere else?  If magic from another universe can exist in our universe and effect our universe, then it must be possible for magic from -our- universe to exist here and do the same as well.

I really don't know what the point of all of this is.

It haven't said it persists or interact, it doesn't necessarily, the unmoved mover doesn't, it only sets in motion, its the CAUSE.

No I don't want it to be capable of magic in this universe, I just want it to be causeless cause, and on this universe that would be magic, so it I propose that if it were from another universe it would not be magic.

We source it from somewhere else so it is not magic.

--------------------------------------------
You guys seem to think (and are very dedicated to go against) a God that was not proposed or implied at all. I and RobValue are both talking about a uncaused cause and how that would make sense, especially when we consider that the cause its prior to time itself and how would that make sense.

So I think you guys are confused.

[Angrboda]

Naive reasoners might be said to have a "makes-sense epistemology." Of course this does not mean that they have an explicit philosophy about what grounds are necessary for belief. But it does mean something in terms of the manifested behavior: such reasoners act as though the test of truth is that a proposition makes intuitive sense, sounds right, rings true. They see no need to criticize accounts that do make sense - the intuitive feel of fit suffices.

Perkins, David N., Richard Allen, and James Hafner. "Difficulties in everyday reasoning." Thinking: The expanding frontier (1983): 177-189.

[_Velvet_]

Naive reasoners might be said to have a "makes-sense epistemology." Of course this does not mean that they have an explicit philosophy about what grounds are necessary for belief. But it does mean something in terms of the manifested behavior: such reasoners act as though the test of truth is that a proposition makes intuitive sense, sounds right, rings true. They see no need to criticize accounts that do make sense - the intuitive feel of fit suffices.

Perkins, David N., Richard Allen, and James Hafner. "Difficulties in everyday reasoning." Thinking: The expanding frontier (1983): 177-189.

If you are going to ad hominem me at least do it in your own words.

[_Velvet_]

Naive reasoners might be said to have a "makes-sense epistemology." Of course this does not mean that they have an explicit philosophy about what grounds are necessary for belief. But it does mean something in terms of the manifested behavior: such reasoners act as though the test of truth is that a proposition makes intuitive sense, sounds right, rings true. They see no need to criticize accounts that do make sense - the intuitive feel of fit suffices.

Well i'm here for that right? Otherwise I would be not interested in talking about my belief since it makes sense and wouldn't be interested on the need or not of making sense.

Also if you are going to ad hominem me might as well not say anything.

If you are interested I advise you to read the last 2-3 pages and you will notice (hopefully) i'm not proposing what you think I am.

[Angrboda]

It haven't said it persists or interact, it doesn't necessarily, the unmoved mover doesn't, it only sets in motion, its the CAUSE.

No I don't want it to be capable of magic in this universe, I just want it to be causeless cause, and on this universe that would be magic, so it I propose that if it were from another universe it would not be magic.

[Whateverist]

We source it from somewhere else so it is not magic.

If we observe actions which violate long standing empirical patterns, it hardly matters that the 'magic' comes from the island of magic. It also doesn't matter if the island is very large or even the size of our own universe. Magic is an apparent exception to the natural norm.

Of course the 'natural norm' is a piece of work in progress, mostly brought to you by science. If you produce a unicorn whose excrement violates the natural norm, science would rightly want to understand the mechanism by which it does so. That is, it would want to amend the natural norm to accommodate new observations. There is no 'magic' which is different in kind to the natural, there is only virgin natural phenomenon waiting to be described and understood.

[Angrboda]

Also if you are going to ad hominem me might as well not say anything.

I wasn't ad hominem'ing you. I was simply pointing out the limits of the "makes sense" sort of reasoning. I should have posted my own thoughts, but I was lazy and borrowed from somewhere else. In short, people frequently engage in a form of reasoning that stops at the question, "Does it make sense?" The problem is that most often the thinking stops there. Additionally, the amount of things that "makes sense" far outweighs the number of things that are true. "Makes sense" epistemology concentrates on confirmation, and completely ignores falsification. Thus employing it as a bar to what is true leaves you in a very vulnerable and weak position.

If you are interested I advise you to read the last 2-3 pages and you will notice (hopefully) i'm not proposing what you think I am.

I don't think I'm under any illusions about what you are proposing. I have read the entire thread.

[Pat Mustard]

Well when I say magic its really not related to god of the gaps as your video seemed to imply.

Well, your god is actually a god of the gaps. As you've said yourself you feel that there is a gap in science which can only be explained by the presence of a god, viz the creation of the universe. In the past it used be thunder and lightning, today it is the creation of the universe, what gap will be left tomorrow?

Edit: Also if you think the universe itself needs a cause, what exempts its creator from itself needing a cause? That's one question that I've never see a theist or deist who argues this line even attempt to answer.