Does a natural "god" maybe exist?

[Nay_Sayer]

To answer your question I ask you one op; Does FSM maybe exist?

[Jackalope]

(The) Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem is often misrepresented as stating that the universe cannot be be past eternal when in fact it does not say that.  

I can't be bothered to look it up, but as I recall, Guth has stated that it does not state what Craig claims it does.

Is Craig still peddling this falsehood?

[Skeptic201]

@Skeptic201

As I said, Dr. Craig, if he was sincere (and, you, too), could bring this matter to the attention of the APS.  Apparently, Dr. Craig is of the opinion that eternal, beginningless models of cosmology are intrinsically flawed.  If so, one must wonder what the Nobel committee was thinking when they awarded Sir Roger Penrose the Nobel Prize in physics??

Of course, Dr. Craig is absolutely correct when he claims that one cannot "count" one's way to infinity, and, by Craig's reasoning, our Universe must be finite, not only in time but also in volume.  But, yet, our Universe, per the BGV theorem, is expanding, which means that "the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time." (Wikipedia, Expansion of the universe)  And, yet, what is the Universe, per Dr. Craig, expanding "into"?  "Nothing"?  If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinites cannot exist in Nature, then how can our Universe be finite without a spatial center?  Please explain that one.  And, if our Universe is finite, where's its surface or edge??  Explain that.

If you live by Science, that's fine.  Just be honest about it.

Sorry don't get your argument.
Our universe is expanding based on observations, not the BGV theorem.
No one knows what the Universe is expanding into.  I think the "room", whatever it is, is likely infinite - but non one knows.
I don't understand what you mean by "If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinities cannot exist in Nature (I think he thinks that, correct), then how can our Universe be finite (it can be... we don't know) without a spatial center (I don't think we know that either, but if Universe is finite I suppose it would have a spatial centre, if infinite a center wouldn't be defined).
Where is the surface or edge if finite (well if there is an edge, its beyond the point which are telescopes can see to).
I don't see how anything you've said adds value to the conversation, no offence. 
I'm in favor of infinity by the way.  It is by infinity that there may be potential for a maximally supreme being - occurring as an inescapable probability against the backdrop of an infinitely old and possibly infinitely vast physical reality.
BTW to the moderator - why did you omit my links, they were only to innocent figures - no mention of my book for sale relating to those links?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Skeptic201

As I said, Dr. Craig, if he was sincere (and, you, too), could bring this matter to the attention of the APS.  Apparently, Dr. Craig is of the opinion that eternal, beginningless models of cosmology are intrinsically flawed.  If so, one must wonder what the Nobel committee was thinking when they awarded Sir Roger Penrose the Nobel Prize in physics??

Of course, Dr. Craig is absolutely correct when he claims that one cannot "count" one's way to infinity, and, by Craig's reasoning, our Universe must be finite, not only in time but also in volume.  But, yet, our Universe, per the BGV theorem, is expanding, which means that "the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time." (Wikipedia, Expansion of the universe)  And, yet, what is the Universe, per Dr. Craig, expanding "into"?  "Nothing"?  If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinites cannot exist in Nature, then how can our Universe be finite without a spatial center?  Please explain that one.  And, if our Universe is finite, where's its surface or edge??  Explain that.

If you live by Science, that's fine.  Just be honest about it.

Sorry don't get your argument.
Our universe is expanding based on observations, not the BGV theorem.
No one knows what the Universe is expanding into.  I think the "room", whatever it is, is likely infinite - but non one knows.
I don't understand what you mean by "If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinities cannot exist in Nature (I think he thinks that, correct), then how can our Universe be finite (it can be... we don't know) without a spatial center (I don't think we know that either, but if Universe is finite I suppose it would have a spatial centre, if infinite a center wouldn't be defined).
Where is the surface or edge if finite (well if there is an edge, its beyond the point which are telescopes can see to).
I don't see how anything you've said adds value to the conversation, no offence. 
I'm in favor of infinity by the way.  It is by infinity that there may be potential for a maximally supreme being - occurring as an inescapable probability against the backdrop of an infinitely old and possibly infinitely vast physical reality.
BTW to the moderator - why did you omit my links, they were only to innocent figures - no mention of my book for sale relating to those links?

Because we have a rule against new members linking to any outside content until they have been a member for 30 days and have accumulated 30 posts. There's an exception to that, but you didn't qualify for it.

Boru

[Jehanne]

@Skeptic201

As I said, Dr. Craig, if he was sincere (and, you, too), could bring this matter to the attention of the APS.  Apparently, Dr. Craig is of the opinion that eternal, beginningless models of cosmology are intrinsically flawed.  If so, one must wonder what the Nobel committee was thinking when they awarded Sir Roger Penrose the Nobel Prize in physics??

Of course, Dr. Craig is absolutely correct when he claims that one cannot "count" one's way to infinity, and, by Craig's reasoning, our Universe must be finite, not only in time but also in volume.  But, yet, our Universe, per the BGV theorem, is expanding, which means that "the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time." (Wikipedia, Expansion of the universe)  And, yet, what is the Universe, per Dr. Craig, expanding "into"?  "Nothing"?  If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinites cannot exist in Nature, then how can our Universe be finite without a spatial center?  Please explain that one.  And, if our Universe is finite, where's its surface or edge??  Explain that.

If you live by Science, that's fine.  Just be honest about it.

Sorry don't get your argument.
Our universe is expanding based on observations, not the BGV theorem.
No one knows what the Universe is expanding into.  I think the "room", whatever it is, is likely infinite - but non one knows.
I don't understand what you mean by "If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinities cannot exist in Nature (I think he thinks that, correct), then how can our Universe be finite (it can be... we don't know) without a spatial center (I don't think we know that either, but if Universe is finite I suppose it would have a spatial centre, if infinite a center wouldn't be defined).
Where is the surface or edge if finite (well if there is an edge, its beyond the point which are telescopes can see to).
I don't see how anything you've said adds value to the conversation, no offence. 
I'm in favor of infinity by the way.  It is by infinity that there may be potential for a maximally supreme being - occurring as an inescapable probability against the backdrop of an infinitely old and possibly infinitely vast physical reality.
BTW to the moderator - why did you omit my links, they were only to innocent figures - no mention of my book for sale relating to those links?

As an atheist, I agree with the late Dr. Carl Sagan (and, you, apparently), "Maybe there is one [a designer] hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be revealed." Now, if you are going to concede that which the Universe is expanding "into" is infinite, then, actual infinites exist in Nature, and Dr. Craig is wrong. If you are going to say "no one knows", then stop appealing to the BGV theorem as being some final theory in physics; it's not, and on the last page, its authors disavow that. "New physics" may shed light on things. If you are going to claim that the Universe is finite, then you are going to need to explain how something can be finite in volume and yet does not have a single spatial or physical center or a physical edge; our Universe is homogeneous and isotropic without a physical edge. If you are going to say that the Universe is expanding into "nothing", then "nothing" is, in fact, something, and the statement, "Out of nothing comes nothing" is false, since the Universe is, observationally, expanding spatially, which was predicted by theory and later confirmed observationally.

[Objectivist]

Hello!

I must start of by recognizing that I am a skeptic, and DO NOT believe in the type of "GOD" that apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig espouses. 

There is a reason Atheists are not buying his arguments.  Why?

In summary, Craig asserts that infinity cannot really exist (i.e. you can't ever really reach an infinite number of baseballs - which seems true), and therefore, and along with support from the Boarde Guth Vilenkin Theorem, that our Universe (or Multiverse - all of physical reality) cannot be eternal -or infinite - to the past.

Therefore, as all things to our knowledge that begin to exist must have had a cause, something "a-physical" must have been that cause (as physical reality is that which is being created or started), and that is consistent with a spiritual entity which serves as a prime moving factor.

Moreover, since this moment of "creation" would have occurred at a "select" moment, this implies a choosing rather than a random act (i.e. why not earlier etc.), which implies a creative mind.

Why isn't this good enough to a skeptic?

Three deal breakers:

1)  Once the mechanism of action by which the asserted"a-physical" prime mover is understood to have performed its creative task, the entity and action could/would be redefined as an entirely natural, new form or branch of physics.

2)  It is fundamentally irrational to assert that an all powerful, all knowing  sentient being of any type (spiritual or natural) simply exists from eternity, without a prior phase or explanation as to its development.   To our knowledge, all things which have intelligence (let alone maximally obtainable intelligence) must have gone through a learning, or programming phase.

3) Most importantly, most Cosmologists such as Sir Roger Penrose, Carroll, Guth and others assert that physical reality may indeed be infinite (in fact infinite in many multidimensional layers)!

So for a skeptic to take seriously an argument for a "God" or "gods" existence, those three caveats must be addressed. 

Well  I think I"ve found such a solution.  Please

Administrator Notice
Link removed for advertising and 30/30 violation

Warm Regards

Happy philosophizing!

There is a much more fundamental caveat that must be met and can't be met by the apologist and that is he's got to reconcile theism's inherent subjectivism with the primacy of existence.  Having a Ph.D. in philosophy, he should know what that is and he needs to reconcile that before he presents any arguments.  Otherwise, he's guilty of stealing concepts.

[polymath257]

Infinite time cannot exist for the simple reason that if time proceeds at one year per year, then we'd still be way back there at minus infinity BC.

Why would that be the case? There may have *always* been an infinite amount of time before any time.

Sort of like the negative integers. No start, infinite regress, and only a finite distance between any two points.

[The Grand Nudger]

I feel like we're not taking the idea of natural divinity seriously in this, more that we're using the term as a stand-in for the usual collection of pixies. For what it's worth, nature as divine has a leg up on pixies called the same - particularly in that it doesn't need to be proven to exist...certainly not to anyone who would take it's existence, itself, as the evidence for a god. Nature is observed, and observing nature, human nature a part of that whole, a natural god does explain human belief in gods succinctly and without any additional pretense or premises. I doubt we could come up with any god concept that amounts to more than a tiny morsel of observed nature, particularly given how little of it our minds are capable of perceiving. When you think about it, the pixies aren't even a morsel of nature, they're a fraction of us, which is itself a fraction of nature.

If we want to posit nature as divine, metaphysically ultimate - then we have no need for spirits or animating entities of any kind. The OP question being reduced to, could there be pixies..in nature? Meh, sure- and there are, tucked away in one quiet little corner of one species among who knows how many others on a single rock floating through the endless sky, at least. Outside of that?

Nope. We're a sufficient explanation for, a necessary condition of, and causal to their existence. They literally couldn't be anywhere else.

[HankMoody316]

Well  I think I"ve found such a solution.  Please

Administrator Notice
Link removed for advertising and 30/30 violation

Could you please post the link after the 30 days are up in this thread as a new comment? (or PM it to me if that is permitted)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well  I think I"ve found such a solution.  Please

Administrator Notice
Link removed for advertising and 30/30 violation

Could you please post the link after the 30 days are up in this thread as a new comment? (or PM it to me if that is permitted)

Sharing links via PM is not prohibited. But please be aware that posting the contents of a private message IS against the rules (which is why they are called ‘private’).

Boru