Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Esquilax]

But can you imagine such a universe? It would have to be a universe that changes, yet does not decay or lose positive energy. No one has discounted it, but then no one has discounted flying unicorns either. 

Do you know how we get to the point of discounting or accepting the idea of flying unicorns? Evidence. The same is true of universal origins, and as it stands the idea you propose is impossible to verify, and therefore impossible to hold rationally.

In time, you may be right, but if you hold this position now, without evidence, then you're just being irrational.

Why hold to a theory that can never be explained, when another answer lies before you?

Because the answer you're proposing has as little explanatory power as infinity does; saying that a god created things doesn't get us a mite closer to knowing how that happened, what actually happened, or to what purpose. I used this example in another thread, but saying "god" to the question "how did the universe begin?" is exactly the same as answering "meat" to the question "how are hotdogs made?"

You may be correct, but you still haven't illuminated anything.

If we are intelligent beings, is it so hard to accept that there might be an intelligent being outside our universe, in the "eternal universe," unrestricted by our laws?

Yes. In fairness, the same could be said of discounting it too; the proper response, when not in possession of enough facts to form an educated position, is to not hold a position. Keep an open mind, and wait, or better yet, look yourself.

The only reason I'm here arguing is because you guys are making far too many unfounded assumptions in the process of confirming a belief you already have, which is inherently the wrong way to go about this.

Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science?

Science is the single most accurate method we have by which we can determine truthful things about the universe. In order to demonstrate some other way of knowing, you'd need to use... well, science to show its accuracy.

We can know things without using science, but let's not knock the concept either; in the case of existential claims, it works.

Why not reason past our observational limitations?

Because you have no justification for believing in anything that you can't detect. Our senses are the only apparatuses we have by which to interact with the world, that and the machines science allows us to construct; anything beyond them is indistinguishable from fantasy.

Because if there is even a possibility of a God who wishes to communicate with us, wouldn't we be idiots not to try?

Only if we can first confirm that he's there, before beginning the process of belief and communication back. Otherwise we're literally talking to empty air. Besides, you're only endorsing this with regards to a single god, right? If I were to start believing in Zeus because of this conversation you'd think I was doing it wrong.

Can a changeless being accidentally cause change?

Why couldn't it? You're ascribing creation to a purposeful act, but the thing about conscious beings is that their acts sometimes have unforeseen consequences; who is to say the creator didn't just sneeze the universe into existence? Or maybe it was trying for something else, and accidentally ended up with us?

A creator is one thing, but at the moment you've got no basis at all for assuming a competent one too.

If this being purposely creates something, would it not be perfect in its/his sight? If you had the power to create the very laws of a new universe, would you not make it exactly as you wish it to be? Why build anything you would be unsatisfied with?

As a writer, let me tell you, sometimes your imagination outreaches your skills. The creator could imagine something perfect, but that doesn't entail he has the creative skills to enact it. That's yet another claim, and one that requires evidence for it.

And if this being is satisfied with our universe, it/he pays great attention to it, and to us. In five billion years, our universe will be dead. Would you complete a work of art to see it destroyed?

Once again, you're assuming there aren't some knock-on consequences of the initial design, unforeseen to the creator, that would cause our universe to die. Why is that?

I can build the greatest sandcastle ever, and be immensely proud of it, but nothing's going to stop the tide from taking it out to sea. And if I didn't build it correctly, it's going to collapse. This is the problem with this argument; your initial conclusion only states "creator," and now you're ascribing all these skills and motivations to it that you can't possibly justify.

This is the anti-Deist argument. A God creates a perfect world and withdraws his support to watch it die... Can you think of anything less fulfilling?

And here you are assuming motivations too. What if your creator's motive wasn't just to create, but to build himself a food source? What if it's an emotional vampire, and feeds off of suffering? What if it's a sadist on a cosmic level and loves watching universes die?

How are any of these excluded by your initial argument?

I'm sure the image of the kid and the anthill is appealing right now. But the kid grows up, and realizes he would much rather be needed by his family than destroy insects who don't even understand.

If this is the case with your creator, then he's not changeless, is he? He's just changed.