Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[bennyboy]

You're obviously a big fan of the false dichotomy. There's an obvious 3rd alternative: Non-random & unintelligent i.e. our universe could be emergent from a set of fundamental or extra-universal naturalistic functions with no intelligent intervention required.

I don't see why I should repeat myself, but a "choice" can be made only either randomly or intelligently, as per the meaning of the word "choice." A deterministic cause definitely results in a particular effect and is not capable of choosing the effect.

Yes, but the word "choice" is these days used in compatibilistic circles to refer to the subjective experience of the resolution of a weighted decision. So it may be inevitable that I choose the Mars Bar rather than the Skittles, but I still experience the back-and-forth that goes on until I finally reach out my hand. This is a problem in theology too, methinks-- to what degree does God have an actual choice, vs. an inevitable one? Could even God have acted otherwise than he has? What is the mechanism by which even God has true liberty?

---

Rhetoric is the cheapest of tricks in any meaningful discussion.

It can be, perhaps, but certainly there's nothing wrong with defining terms.

---

I said that your conception of God as maximally good, and of the universe as a deliberate creation by a good god, are nonsense, because only a fool would consider our universe maximally good. I'm pretty sure I never said "God does not exist."

That's a start, but in order to say "I don't know if God exists," you still need to understand the meaning of the term "God." If you think the Christian conception of God has no reference, yet still remain an agnostic, then you need at least one different conception of God of whose existence you are unsure.

When asked if "x" exists, I must answer that I do not know, because "x" is not adequately defined for me. Unlike many here, I would not default to the position that "x" doesn't exist before being presented, because I need a well-formed idea to test before testing it with any kind of observations or rational treatment.

I'd declare as a gnostic atheist about Sky Daddy watching me disapprovingly if I watch Asian porn when my wife's away. That Biblical judge is not compatible with any sensible idea bout the grandeur of a universe-creating being.

I'd declare as a gnostic theist if God was defined as "that which transcends paradox and allows the universe to exist," since I'm aware of some paradoxes, and of the universe's existence, although more on that in a moment. I'd declare as an agnostic deist if asked about my emotional hunches about whether any intelligent being was involved in the creation in the universe, or an agnostic atheist if asked to make an intellectual evalution.

I think your process in this thread is to define God in terms that are rational, i.e. "that which transcends paradox and allows the universe to exist." But in my opinion, this is a bad definition-- I do not accept as big-G Christian "God" any definition which does not involve an active intelligence and an ongoing interaction with humanity-- this redefinition is a semantic trick to anthropormorphize something which does not necessarily need to be imbued with the property of sentience. And whatever logical gymnastics you attempt, I will not accept the idea of an interactive God with whom I have not interacted, or of an intelligent God whose intelligence cannot be observed except by those who already believe.