Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[pocaracas]

---

Esquilax already tore your post down, but I'll just add a few things here and there.


And why should a god require you, lowly human, to define these things?
Why should a god require that I accept your view/interpretation of what other humans wrote about that god?
What does god need with a starship?!!?

And this is the part of Krauss's book that you failed to understand.
There is a very real chance that all the constituents of the Universe have always been there... under some other guise, true, but it was always there... at some point, for whatever reason, we got the big bang. Krauss's major point on this is that, adding up all the energy and anti-energy you get a nice fat ZERO. Conservation of energy? check!
A God-like interference would have added some energy into this mix and the whole would be far from zero.
So.... on the whole, the Universe is nothing.
Try to wrap your head around that... it's not easy, even I have some difficulty with it...

Aren't you working backwards?
We see a complex universe... well, not that complex, but a bit more complex than "sleep, eat, fuck & die".
So our limited comprehension leaps to some higher intelligence behind that "complexity"... I wouldn't make such a leap. There may be other explanations. Why don't we try to find them, instead of getting stuck in one that has no evidence to support it?

Superman is the nth degree of perfection... n=10?... so since to be a being is a greater perfection than not being a being, superman is a being.
Way to go, supes!
Now, the same for Wolverine, Spiderman, The Spawn, Freddy Kruger, darth vader, yoda, etc...

Krauss is still making your head ache, huh?
The Nothing which is empty space is not really nothing. It's full of virtual particles and fields.


This view of Jesus was made up some time later. Here's what a scholar of the subject says:




No, space-time seems to have always been there.

Yes... a pretty definition.
But where is this being? How did you get to know this about it?
Let me guess: someone told you, someone wrote about it in a book.

Well, I will only accept such information coming directly from the origin. I dislike the human chain of information transfer regarding this kind of entities. Too many inventions get put in the story along the way...


How do you know there was a time when time and space did not exist?

My source is St. Thomas Aquinas. Go to his Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2. The existence of God, Article 3 at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm.

To summarize the Second way:
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1 We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2 Nothing exists prior to itself.

3 Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

4 If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

5 Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6 The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

7 Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

St. Thomas Aquinas is difficult to read, so I was trying to explain his arguments.
When I say "nothing comes from nothing" I am defining nothing is what rocks dream of: nothing, not particles or energy. Absolutely nothing. Zilch, nil, nada, zero. Only a spirit can pre-exist matter.

By the way, you have not demonstrated that it is impossible for God to exist.
Your arguments sound like "it is impossible for God to exist because God does not exist." That is not logical. You are still comparing apples to oranges, because God is not composed of any matter. It is important to define the nature of God so that we are both discussing the same thing.

Tell me about your idea of the God that doesn't exist. Maybe I don't believe in that either.

---

Damn you Esquilax.... always replying while I sleep...

[PeterPriesthood]

... trying to prove anything about religion with logic is dangerous. We'll end up going down the Rabbit Hole, my friend. We need to keep our Faith strong and trust that it will help us discern the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm okay that we don't know everything about the Universe yet. God does though. I'm certain that if he doesn't reveal it all to us in this lifetime, there's at least more life to live once we shed our mortal shells.

What, and your own special brand of logic keeps you out of Rabbit Holes? You've assumed there is a God, and you base your faith on this assumption. Can you explain why this mode of thinking is correct, or will that be Rabbit Hole territory?

It's correct because God has made his presence known to me, and this is because of my faith. Essentially, I passed a very important part of his test. Gaining faith in Christ is an essential part of our mortal sojourn, and, without it, we will never achieve exaltation.

As you can see, I like to keep my Rabbit Hole neat and tidy.

[Esquilax]

Damn you Esquilax.... always replying while I sleep...

Sleep is a weakness.

I don't mean to poach your fun, but it was just too irresistible.

[Undeceived]

Step two. Picture the thing/event/force that is the catalyst for our universe.

Universe as it currently is. Nobody has provided a reason to discount an eternal universe yet.

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. 

What caused it? Another thing/event/force. And so on into infinity. Every thing/event/force is changing, causing the next. Now, if we obey our inclinations and find where infinity yields to a beginning, we come to a point where there was no change.

Why are we discounting plain old infinity?

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

Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science? Why not reason past our observational limitations? Because if there is even a possibility of a God who wishes to communicate with us, wouldn't we be idiots not to try?

Oh, and once again, even granting the premises of your argument, "personal cause," doesn't equal "your god." It doesn't even equal "purposeful creation." Maybe this first cause just sneezed, and bam, universe?

Can a changeless being accidentally cause change? While you think about that, let's say "No" so we can move on with the argument. 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? 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? 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?

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.

[pocaracas]

Damn you Esquilax.... always replying while I sleep...

Sleep is a weakness.

I don't mean to poach your fun, but it was just too irresistible.

Yep, irresistible it was...
Keep it up!

---

Universe as it currently is. Nobody has provided a reason to discount an eternal universe yet.

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. 

Why are we discounting plain old infinity?

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

Why propose a theory that can't be verified?
If there is such a being, it is trying its damnest to keep away, to remain hidden from us.
Also, if there is such a being, how did it come to be? Did it evolve on some substrate (like humans on Earth) accompanied by other such beings... or what?

Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science? Why not reason past our observational limitations? Because if there is even a possibility of a God who wishes to communicate with us, wouldn't we be idiots not to try?

Many have tried.... and have only "succeeded" when they become self-convinced of the reality of such a being. Leading to total absence of evidence for others to be convinced without that prior requirement of already being convinced.

Oh, and once again, even granting the premises of your argument, "personal cause," doesn't equal "your god." It doesn't even equal "purposeful creation." Maybe this first cause just sneezed, and bam, universe?

Can a changeless being accidentally cause change? While you think about that, let's say "No" so we can move on with the argument. 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? 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? 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?

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.

I'd go with the kid and the ant farm.
Kid builds the farm, puts some ants in... sees them go about for a few days... grows tired, gets a new toy, lets the ants be until his mom forces him to dispose of the farm, because he's going to move out.

[Lucanus]

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

Is there evidence for your answer? As long as there is none, everyone can hold to the theory they prefer. Also, the intelligent being hypothesis is not that good in terms of logical economy.

Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science? Why not reason past our observational limitations?

Because whenever we go past our observation our arguments just become magnificent wanks.
Also, you can't seem to go beyond arguments from ignorance when it comes to prove god.

[Foxaèr]

Why not reason past our observational limitations?

To look beyond what can be observed would not be reason.

[Bad Writer]

Why not reason past our observational limitations?

To look beyond what can be observed would not be reason.

This.

If I'm eating regular French Fries from Burger King, I suppose I could imagine that I'm actually eating Parmesan-coated Sweet Potato Fries dipped in hand-made Tzaziki sauce, but that does not change the reality that they are still nothing more than regular French Fries.

[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.

[Undeceived]

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.

You mean to say that everything you believe has been verified by the scientific method? Has your wife's love has been demonstrated through instruments or have you used logic to interpret the evidence? That's all we're doing in this argument for God. We have realized certain truths, such as the probability that all actions need causes (inductively speaking), and we let them lead us to conclusions.

Because the answer you're proposing has as little explanatory power as infinity does;
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.

You're right, this argument is not enough to believe in God. But it is enough to compel us to seek Him, if we are willing. My belief is not confirmed by science, but by experience. When I developed a relationship with Jesus, my life changed completely. I've seen friends' lives changed too. I've seen bigots become lovers. I've seen drug addicts become leaders. I've seen criminals turned into citizens. I've seen miserable rich people become joyous missionaries.

Galatians 5:19-22
"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

You can tell a tree by its fruit. We know the Spirit of God exists by what He produces within us.

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

This changeless being is the first efficient cause, meaning nothing around it/him is changing yet. There is no matter. This is step one, before anything exists at all, in our universe or preceding universes! Therefore anything the being creates would be fully grasped by its/his mind. There is nothing it/he cannot comprehend, because it/he is the first thing that's not nothing. While we have no control over our building blocks, it/he invents the blocks themselves. And again, there must be a first thing that's not nothing unless we wish to do the irrational--break causal chains or go to infinity. So you can dispute causation or infinity, but it doesn't seem that the "incompetent first efficient cause" objection holds any water.

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.

Yet the claim is not vital to my argument. If I can logically demonstrate the existence of a creator, he is obviously creative enough to make us... because here we are. In my effort to prove that a steam engine must have had a designer, I need not track the engineer down and ask for his credentials.

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?

Why do you give our creator motives so unlike and beneath our own? If it/he created us, it/he would be similar, yet greater. It/he must also know love, peace and patience. If it/he sought only suffering, the world would be a much more terrible place. But since the creator knows both love and torture, which do you think he would choose? Which is more logical--to care for and nurture your creation or to erase all the hard work you put into it?