The absolute absurdity of God

[SteveII]

Steve, if an individual attributes the beginning of the universe to a deity, then is that more of an act of faith than an actual explanation?

I don't think so. I outlined an argument that gets you to a list of attributes for a first cause. Additionally, we can look at other arguments that infer design, etc. that infer intelligence/purpose. Faith enters when you start to work out the specifics of a religion--in my case Christianity. Faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

[SteveII]

[pocaracas]

[SteveII]

The best, most sound mathematical and physical models of the universe do not posit an etneral universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

That applies to the Universe. I'm going beyond the Universe, in case I haven't made it obvious.
Beyond the Universe, out of the Universe.
Models exist that posit that spacetime could be in existence in the absence of the Universe and that this spacetime is responsible for somehow generating the Universe.

I would like to read up on such models that don't require and physics and are separate from the universe. Sounds more like metaphysical musings. Do you have a link?

---

You are describing a metaphysical concept--not anything remotely connected to reality. My argument deals with what we know and what can be known. A possible defeater to any of the premises is not enough because the premises are measured on the "more likely than not" scale in order to be successful in an inductive argument. Nothing you propose remotely qualifies for "more likely than not". 

Don't you wonder about the biases that went into determining that likelihood?

 
Biases? You mean like science, observation, experience, intuition? These are the things that your "possibility" lacks.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Steve, if an individual attributes the beginning of the universe to a deity, then is that more of an act of faith than an actual explanation?

I don't think so. I outlined an argument that gets you to a list of attributes for a first cause. Additionally, we can look at other arguments that infer design, etc. that infer intelligence/purpose. Faith enters when you start to work out the specifics of a religion--in my case Christianity. Faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

Thanks.  I see that you referenced an argument from contingency. I'll post it below along with a few questions and comments that I had about it.

A void doesn't make sense, but an immaterial mind does?

It seems your definitions of "making sense" and "correct understanding" and mine, drastically differ.

Please provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim that an immaterial mind is even possible. Once you accomplish that, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that it actually does exist.

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters). Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. (A) We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Regarding point 1, it would seem reasonable to treat this as an axiom in order to advance the argument.

Regarding point 2, would it be more accurate to say that if one is already a practitioner of a religious faith, then 2 follows?  This premise asserts that the explanation is god without addressing other possible explanations and reasoning out why these alternative explanations fall short.  Also, is god actually an explanation? What were the actual processes involved and how can they be broken down and explained? Given that this is a logical/intellectual exercise, then IMO, more elaboration and clarification is needed in order for "god" to qualify as an explanation. 

That said, it appears that such a statement would be more intuitive and natural for a religious audience and perhaps this is the type of audience that this argument is meant to sway?


Regarding point 5, is this ultimately just another way of saying that the explanation of the universe’s existence is unknown?

Regarding point A, to what degree are humans projecting their characteristics, imagination, and incomplete understanding of the universe onto a first cause?

[Angrboda]

Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason exist?

It would seem it does. Does it either have an explanation for its existence or exist by the necessity of its nature? It's not immediately obvious that its existence is necessary. There are arguments about just what exactly it even is.

[LadyForCamus]

Whoa. Why do you dwell on only the negatives of existence?

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not complaining about pain we experience during life. I’m saying that according to the narrative, god created living creatures with the capacity to suffer, having full knowledge that he would be condemning a great deal of these creatures to eternal suffering, not because they have caused suffering to their fellow creatures, but simply for having doubts about His existence. He executed this plan not because he had to; not because he needed us; but because he wanted to. That is narcissism of a monstrous order.  If any human treated another human, or even an animal in this way, society would label them at the very least apathetic to suffering, and at the very worst, a sociopath.

God does not need us.

Which makes his decision all the more horrific, and not in line with any being capable of experiencing empathy.

I think you are getting hung up on a misunderstanding of what it means to "Glorify God". Glorifying God involves having the fullest possible existence--which includes a relationship with him.Part of this is to understand the differences between an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God and ourselves (which is pretty much the opposite). This rightly results in an awe of God and a desire to worship him as a being worthy of worship.

I’m sorry, but none of the above clears anything up for me.  My understanding from the passages you provided, from what you have explained, and from the definition of the word, ‘glorify’, is that god made people so he could be praised and worshipped. I don’t see how an ego-driven lust for worship is moral justification for causing a feeling creature eternal suffering. I can’t even justify this idea as a “relationship” in the colloquial sense of the word.  What is the relationship between a man who tells another man or woman, ‘dedicate your entire being to me or I will torture you endlessly’?

We are not "pets". That is entirely too simplistic and shows a total lack of understanding the point which I am trying (imperfectly) to articulate.

I am definitely not understanding, I’m sorry.

God knows exactly how many will reject whatever truth he has made know to them.

I know of no objective evidence, or reason that exists which would indicate any kind of “truth” having been shown to me. This whole idea of, ‘you’ve been shown the truth; you just don’t want to see it,’ seems to me an ad hoc hypothesis Christians have come up with to explain why some people remain unconvinced, despite the Bible asserting everyone gets a fair shake.

It does not logically follow that no one should exist. At its root, this is an emotional response, not an argument.

My argument isn’t, “no one should exist.”  My argument is that god’s motives, actions, and reasons for his actions; in combination with his foreknowledge; are not in line with a loving, empathetic being who cares about the well-being of others.

[pocaracas]

[SteveII]

Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason exist?

It would seem it does.  Does it either have an explanation for its existence or exist by the necessity of its nature?  It's not immediately obvious that its existence is necessary.  There are arguments about just what exactly it even is.

Can a reality be imagined that does not have some sort of PSR? I think it has to be part of every coherent reality.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason exist?

It would seem it does.  Does it either have an explanation for its existence or exist by the necessity of its nature?  It's not immediately obvious that its existence is necessary.  There are arguments about just what exactly it even is.

Can a reality be imagined that does not have some sort of PSR? I think it has to be part of every coherent reality.

Taking it further do principles exist? Are they merely descriptive or somehow proscriptive?