My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[Brian37]

There is a very mundane psychology as to why humans want a super natural being in as a gap answer.

1. THE biggest reason is they get sold the idea as toddlers by the parents long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.

2. The fear of being finite scares most humans. Even with theists whom claim they are not afraid of dying for what they believe, the promise of reward, by either a God, or their divine ancestors, and even reincarnation, all give them an excuse to avoid we do not matter to a 13.8 billion year old universe.

3. Group survival, all the other people that agree with them cannot be wrong. Well yes they can.

Bottom line, humans tend to protect that which is local and the social norms of what their parents sell them.

[bennyboy]

Looks like Dan is a poop and run. I'm moving on.

Super surprising.

[brewer]

Looks like Dan is a poop and run. I'm moving on.

Super surprising.

I gave him all the chance I'm willing to give.

[bennyboy]

He's in his dungeon, working real hard on a come back. He'll be back in about 3 months with a "new" argument that we've shredded 50 times in the last 3 years.

[GrandizerII]

OP, youre not saying anything new here. All of that has been debunked satisfactorily over and over again.

[vulcanlogician]

Looks like Dan is a poop and run. I'm moving on.

Dan? Can you hear us, Dan?

Come back! We have the refutations you asked for.

Dan?

Please, come back, Dan.

We miss you.




Tell us about the watch again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I live in a termite mound in Argentina. I know who made my house.

[Cyberman]

I live in shoebox in t'middle o' road.

[Dan Brooks]

Can't people come up with their own arguments?  You can find 150 year old refutations of this.

One argument that doesn't seem to get made very much with it is that it's really an argument for polytheism.  Is there a complicated house that has but a single buildèr? No. Someone laid the foundation and someone else painted the paint.

That rolex? Someone mined the gold for it, someone else smelted it, someone else put together the gears and only then is there a watchmaker. The more complicated something is, the more people it takes. So a human being is more complicated than that. It would undoubtedly take many gods to make. That is really the unintentional moral of everything in that argument.

So I would assume you are probably a Hindu, right?

Only if those gods were finite in their intelligence and power. I'm talking about one God who is not finite in His intelligence or power.

---

He's in his dungeon, working real hard on a come back.  He'll be back in about 3 months with a "new" argument that we've shredded 50 times in the last 3 years.

I had to go to bed and sleep and get up and go to work. I can't just be on here 24/7. I'll come on here often enough when the Christian forum gets boring.

---

(If a house shows up in a neighborhood, and no one saw it being built, did it have a builder?)

"From nothing nothing comes" is scientific. (I think it still is, isn't it? Under debate, maybe).

There is no such scientific principle. The appearance of virtual particles contradicts the notion, which is all that is.

"The universe is something." I think that would be classified as a true statement.

Yes, the universe is something. But it's not true that nothing can't result in something. It's certainly not true in math, all kinds of things can come from nothing as long as they add up to zero: 0=2+4-6=0.

"Therefore the universe came from something." I think that would be a nice logical conclusion.

It doesn't use logic or evidence, so I don't know why you would think it's a logical conclusion. The universe either appeared spontaneously or came from whatever preceded it. There's math and physics that says a quantum vacuum fluctuation can produce a universe. That may not be what happened, but if it did, the energy of the universe should add up to zero (total positive energy plus total negative energy cancelling each other out). We don't know that the energy of the universe actually adds up to zero, but we know it's at least very close to it.

Now, since it is universally observed (which observation is required in order for anything to be classified as scientific), that anything made has a maker, some consideration should be taken as to the nature of the maker of a given thing.

See virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. It has certainly not been established that everything requires a maker to exist. In fact, we have excellent naturalistic alternative origins for everything that have the advantage of working math and not violating physics as we know it.

The maker of a wooden chair just needs to know enough about woodworking in order to have planned and accomplished the fashioning and construction of the chair. It is a functional item, with a useful purpose, so it would require intelligence to accomplish the production of a wooden chair, albeit not necessarily a great intelligence, because the item is not very complex.
A Rolex watch also requires a maker, and one who needs enough intelligence to make all the small intricate parts of the watch, and to make them all work together correctly and properly, and over a long period of time. The maker would have to know how to tell time, and how to cause the made item to also be able to tell time. This item is also quite functional, and also has a useful purpose, but since it is much more complex than a wooden chair, it requires more intelligence, and more labor as well, to accomplish the production of it.
Now the same could be said of a house, a hotel, a hospital, a skyscraper, or an entire city. Each requiring more intelligence, more organization, and more manpower to accomplish it's respective product.
So using this same reasoning, (and I think it is logical reasoning. Correct me if I am wrong), we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish such a thing as an entire universe, and not just any universe, with all of it's nearly innumerable complexities, but a universe in which there is life, and not just life, but an astoundingly wide variety of forms of life, each with their various levels of intelligence, purpose, and function- I say we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish this is utterly incalculable.

Since you asked me to correct you if you are wrong: you are wrong. You're saying that since everything that people make requires a person to make it, that everything people don't make was made by a some posited personal being. That does not follow, and those things not made by people (or other biological organisms) are very different from those things that exist without having been made by such creatures. We also know a good deal about the undirected natural processes that result in 'everything else'. No intelligence required, just gravity, mainly.

I think that conclusion is quite logical, and about as scientific as we can be, since, though we did not witness the creation of the universe, all other things that we know to be made are also known to have a maker, and the making of such made things can be observed. It would I think, therefore be quite an illogical conclusion that the universe itself could not have a maker.

You don't seem to be a very good judge of what is logical or scientific. A good rule of thumb is that if someone is telling you how logical and scientific they're being every few minutes, that's probably the last thing they're being. We don't know exactly how the universe came to be, but it's more a problem of having multiple plausible naturalistic hypotheses that we are unable to test at this time.

(If a universe comes into existence, and no one saw it being made, did it have a maker?)

Whether or not something had a maker, it did or did not regardless if anyone saw it being made. If we see a house, we know a person designed it and people (or possibly their robots) built it; because we know where houses come from. We don't know for sure yet where universe come from, but there's no evidence that intelligent direction is required.

I heard that they were doing away with the "from nothing nothing comes" principle. I guess they did then, sorry. (Or is it a mandella effect?)
I also didn't realize that physicalities were equal to abstracts like math. 
So then the universe either came from something, or it came from nothing. Sounds good.
Amazingly, it takes less intelligence to create a universe than it does a wooden chair. All you need is gravity! (wherever that came from.)
And I know the seeing is not required for the thing to be true. Just like no one needs to have heard the tree fall in the forest for it to make a sound. Truth is not dependent upon knowledge or belief.

[brewer]

Yea, he returned. Hiya Dan.

Yes, all you need is gravity, that's it, nothing else.

Oh, and stuff, gravity and stuff but that's all.

Wait, and time, gravity, stuff and time.