Evidence for god or gods?

[rossum]

Even a multiverse requires explanation.

Why? You assert that your deity requires no explanation because it exists external to the universe. Likewise a multiverse exists external to the universe. Both act as a placeholder for “the cause of the universe”.

You are just postponing the inevitable consequence that the ultimate Cause cannot have less power or less insight than the effects.

Why not? You are saying that both power and insight are conserved, or monotonically declining, qualities. Where is your evidence for this? A son can have more power then his parents; Donald Trump’s father was never elected President.

Did Einstein’s parents, or Mother Theresa’s parents have more insight than their children?

Where is your evidence that power and insight are conserved, and can never increase?
Neither power nor insight are conserved qualities. Your argument fails on this point.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Why? You assert that your deity requires no explanation because it exists external to the universe. Likewise a multiverse exists external to the universe. Both act as a placeholder for “the cause of the universe”.

There are no evidence that a multiverse is eternal, has emerged spontaneously is conscious or capable of self-control. The Creator transcends space or time which are well-known features of the universe.

Why not? You are saying that both power and insight are conserved, or monotonically declining, qualities. Where is your evidence for this? A son can have more power then his parents; Donald Trump’s father was never elected President.

Did Einstein’s parents, or Mother Theresa’s parents have more insight than their children?

Where is your evidence that power and insight are conserved, and can never increase?
Neither power nor insight are conserved qualities. Your argument fails on this point.

Non sequitur. The principle of adequate explanation implies that the Creator has infinite insight and power which far exceed the insight and power of finite creatures.

 

[rossum]

There are no evidence that a multiverse is eternal, has emerged spontaneously is conscious or capable of self-control. The Creator transcends space or time which are well-known features of the universe.

Assume, arguendo, that the Creator did not create the universe directly, but indirectly: “Let the multiverse bring forth…”

Does that make the multiverse powerful, eternal, intelligent or any of the other characteristics you arbitrarily assign to the Creator. The only necessary characteristics of the Creator are 1) existence for the required period of time and 2) the power/ability to create at least one universe. Anything beyond those two your are going to have to justify.

Non sequitur. The principle of adequate explanation implies that the Creator has infinite insight and power which far exceed the insight and power of finite creatures.

If the Creator has infinite power, then It has the power to create an infinite number of universes. Please demonstrate the existence of an infinite number of universes to support your claim.

You are asserting unnecessary characteristics of the Creator, with insufficient support.

rossum

 

[Vonsalza]

If the Creator has infinite power, then It has the power to create an infinite number of universes. Please demonstrate the existence of an infinite number of universes to support your claim.

We’ve been over this 1000 times. “If the creator has X attribute, then it will use this attribute in a way that I think it would” is an unsound premise that these kind of arguments require - to their detriment.

If there is some “Ultimate Will”, the notion that it’s beholden to what we think is laughable.

 

[tonyrey]

Assume, arguendo, that the Creator did not create the universe directly, but indirectly: “Let the multiverse bring forth…”

Does that make the multiverse powerful, eternal, intelligent or any of the other characteristics you arbitrarily assign to the Creator. The only necessary characteristics of the Creator are 1) existence for the required period of time and 2) the power/ability to create at least one universe. Anything beyond those two your are going to have to justify. If the Creator has infinite power, then It has the power to create an infinite number of universes. Please demonstrate the existence of an infinite number of universes to support your claim.

You are asserting unnecessary characteristics of the Creator, with insufficient support.

It was an atheist, David Hume, who pointed out that the cause must be proportioned to the effect. Attributes like intelligence and consciousness cannot be derived from things which lack those attributes. You would be getting something for nothing - like rational minds from mindless molecules. I’m surprised a Buddhist doesn’t distinguish spiritual from physical reality…

 

[STT]

It was an atheist, David Hume, who pointed out that the cause must be proportioned to the effect. Attributes like intelligence and consciousness cannot be derived from things which lack those attributes. You would be getting something for nothing - like rational minds from mindless molecules. I’m surprised a Buddhist doesn’t distinguish spiritual from physical reality…

It is shown that there is a correlation between brain activity and consciousness.

 

[rossum]

We’ve been over this 1000 times. “If the creator has X attribute, then it will use this attribute in a way that I think it would” is an unsound premise that these kind of arguments require - to their detriment.

If there is some “Ultimate Will”, the notion that it’s beholden to what we think is laughable.

The fact remains that there is no evidence (as opposed to belief) for infinite power. The evidence only supports “enough power to create one universe”. A multiverse has that, but does not have infinite power/energy. Hence there is no necessary logical link between “the ability to create at least one universe” and “infinite power”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Attributes like intelligence and consciousness cannot be derived from things which lack those attributes.

That only works for conserved quantities. Neither intelligence nor consciousness are conserved. A human zygote is a single cell. It has neither intelligence nor consciousness. That cell is fed by its mother, first via the placenta and then on milk. Neither the placenta nor milk have intelligence or consciousness. Both intelligence and consciousness develop from non-intelligent and non-conscious (name removed by moderator)uts.

When someone dies the amount of intelligence in the universe decreases. Similarly for consciousness.

The quantities of intelligence and consciousness in the universe can vary, both up (zygote → adult) and down (adult → death). Since they are not conserved, then there is no need for them to be present from the very start. They can develop over time.

Where something is conserved, like energy, then all the energy of the universe has to be present from the start. Since it is conserved, the amount present does not change; it neither increases nor decreases.

You are trying to apply the logic of a conserved quantity to non-conserved quantities. That is an error.

You would be getting something for nothing - like rational minds from mindless molecules.

An effect may be different from the cause. Water is a liquid. It is caused by two gases: oxygen and hydrogen. Salt is an essential component of our diet. It is caused by two poisons: sodium and chlorine. You need to examine emergent properties. Effects are not identical to causes. Is Lucifer (the effect) identical to God (the cause)?

I’m surprised a Buddhist doesn’t distinguish spiritual from physical reality…

I do. It is just that I do not work from Christian definitions.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

We’ve been over this 1000 times. “If the creator has X attribute, then it will use this attribute in a way that I think it would” is an unsound premise that these kind of arguments require - to their detriment.

If there is some “Ultimate Will”, the notion that it’s beholden to what we think is laughable.

It is highly presumptuous for a creature with finite knowledge and intelligence to impose arbitrary limits on the Creator’s activity…

 

[tonyrey]

That only works for conserved quantities. Neither intelligence nor consciousness are conserved. A human zygote is a single cell. It has neither intelligence nor consciousness. That cell is fed by its mother, first via the placenta and then on milk. Neither the placenta nor milk have intelligence or consciousness. Both intelligence and consciousness develop from non-intelligent and non-conscious (name removed by moderator)uts.]

On the contrary the source is the father and mother whose genes contain the instructions for the physical development of the child from the moment of conception. Its spiritual development must be independent: otherwise it would not have free will or the capacity for unselfish love.

When someone dies the amount of intelligence in the universe decreases. Similarly for consciousness.

The quantities of intelligence and consciousness in the universe can vary, both up (zygote → adult) and down (adult → death). Since they are not conserved, then there is no need for them to be present from the very start. They can develop over time.

Where something is conserved, like energy, then all the energy of the universe has to be present from the start. Since it is conserved, the amount present does not change; it neither increases nor decreases.

Only from a materialist’s point of view. Spiritual energy is a factor you have overlooked.

You are trying to apply the logic of a conserved quantity to non-conserved quantities. That is an error.
An effect may be different from the cause. Water is a liquid. It is caused by two gases: oxygen and hydrogen. Salt is an essential component of our diet. It is caused by two poisons: sodium and chlorine. You need to examine emergent properties. Effects are not identical to causes. Is Lucifer (the effect) identical to God (the cause)?

Physical qualities and quantities are only one aspect of reality.

I’m surprised a Buddhist doesn’t distinguish spiritual from physical reality…

I do. It is just that I do not work from Christian definitions.

Then you need to explain how persons differ from animals…

 

[tonyrey]

The fact remains that there is no evidence (as opposed to belief) for infinite power. The evidence only supports “enough power to create one universe”. A multiverse has that, but does not have infinite power/energy. Hence there is no necessary logical link between “the ability to create at least one universe” and “infinite power”.

The insight and power required to create this vast and immensely complex universe are so great that it is highly presumptuous for a creature with finite knowledge and intelligence to impose arbitrary (man-made) limits on the Creator’s potential…

 

[rossum]

On the contrary the source is the father and mother whose genes contain the instructions for the physical development of the child from the moment of conception.

You are confusing “instructions for X” with “X”. The instructions to build a massive supercomputer cannot perform the calculations that the actual supercomputer can, when constructed. A string of DNA is neither intelligent nor conscious. Your “instructions” example is yet another illustration of something that is intelligent and conscious arising from causes (genes) that are neither intelligent nor conscious.

Physical qualities and quantities are only one aspect of reality.

Yes, but they are the part of reality that science deals with. You did not answer my question about God and Lucifer. Are all the qualities of Lucifer inherent in God, who created him? Or did some of those qualities arise in Lucifer independent of God after the creation of Lucifer?

Then you need to explain how persons differ from animals…

Not by as much as in Christianity. In Buddhism there are no souls, so that is not a difference. Humans can be reborn as animals and vice versa so there is less difference there. The Buddhist equivalent of “You shall not kill,” is “to avoid injury to living things.” The net is spread wider and is more inclusive.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The insight and power required to create this vast and immensely complex universe are so great that it is highly presumptuous for a creature with finite knowledge and intelligence to impose arbitrary (man-made) limits on the Creator’s potential…

So, you have no logical support for your belief. Thank you for confirming that.

rossum

 

[Vonsalza]

The fact remains that there is no evidence (as opposed to belief) for infinite power. The evidence only supports “enough power to create one universe”.

I’m not sure how to take this. There are plenty of reasons to scientifically theorize a multiverse. Moreover, as we can’t conceivably leave our own universe at the present, what would this evidence even look like if it did exist?

A multiverse has that, but does not have infinite power/energy. Hence there is no necessary logical link between “the ability to create at least one universe” and “infinite power”.

You still presume to know how God should necessarily act; particularly as it pertains to God and the creation of universes. It’s a non-argument, no matter how rational and internally consistent your secondary considerations may appear to be. The primary premise is still a bad one.

 

[rossum]

I’m not sure how to take this. There are plenty of reasons to scientifically theorize a multiverse. Moreover, as we can’t conceivably leave our own universe at the present, what would this evidence even look like if it did exist?

We can work backwards from our own universe: the effect. Observing the effect, which we can do, limits the multiverse to “causes which can cause the observed effect”. Any type of multiverse that only causes universes stuffed with green cheese is obviously not real.

That still leaves a wide range of possible multiverses, but it does not allow every multiverse. There are observable limitations on the effects a multiverse can produce.

You still presume to know how God should necessarily act; particularly as it pertains to God and the creation of universes.

I say nothing about God. I am using the example of the multiverse to show that a cause of the universe does not necessarily have certain properties. A multiverse does not have infinite power and a multiverse causes this universe. Hence “cause of the universe” does not automatically imply “infinite power”. All that is necessary is “enough power to cause one universe”. That may well be a lot of power, but it is not necessarily infinite power.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

We can work backwards from our own universe: the effect. Observing the effect, which we can do, limits the multiverse to “causes which can cause the observed effect”. Any type of multiverse that only causes universes stuffed with green cheese is obviously not real.

That still leaves a wide range of possible multiverses, but it does not allow every multiverse. There are observable limitations on the effects a multiverse can produce.

I say nothing about God. I am using the example of the multiverse to show that a cause of the universe does not necessarily have certain properties. A multiverse does not have infinite power and a multiverse causes this universe. Hence “cause of the universe” does not automatically imply “infinite power”. All that is necessary is “enough power to cause one universe”. That may well be a lot of power, but it is not necessarily infinite power.

rossum

The immense insight as well as power required to create a universe makes the distinction insignificant. Human terminology is hopelessly inadequate when it comes to a description of the Supreme Being. Rudolf Otto was more realistic when he referred to the **mysterium tremendum et fascinans
**.

 

[tonyrey]

So, you have no logical support for your belief. Thank you for confirming that.

It is a rational conclusion is based on the principles of economy, adequacy, coherence, consistency, probability and fertility - which I can elaborate if you wish…

 

[rossum]

The immense insight as well as power required to create a universe makes the distinction insignificant. Human terminology is hopelessly inadequate when it comes to a description of the Supreme Being. Rudolf Otto was more realistic when he referred to the mysterium tremendum et fascinans.

Then our discussion here, which is in human terminology, is “hopelessly inadequate”. All documents produced by the Church, which are in human terminology, are “hopelessly inadequate”. The Bible, which is in human terminology is, “hopelessly inadequate”.

You have just destroyed any possibility of using human terminology to discuss God.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Then our discussion here, which is in human terminology, is “hopelessly inadequate”. All documents produced by the Church, which are in human terminology, are “hopelessly inadequate”. The Bible, which is in human terminology is, “hopelessly inadequate”.

You have just destroyed any possibility of using human terminology to discuss God.

On the contrary not only are the Bible and Christianity to a large extent based on historical facts but the criteria I have mentioned demonstrate that theism is the most convincing interpretation of reality. Ideologies like Buddhism do not even attempt to give a comprehensive explanation of the origin of the physical universe or the spiritual aspect of existence whereas St Thomas Aquinas pointed out that our knowledge of God is based on a combination of the Via Negativa, Via Analogia and the Via Eminentia.

thesumma.info/reality/reality9.php

 

[rossum]

On the contrary not only are the Bible and Christianity to a large extent based on historical facts

Historical facts written down in “human terminology” and hence inadequate for any description/discussion of God.

Or do you wish to modify the statement you made earlier in your post #156?

Human terminology is hopelessly inadequate when it comes to a description of the Supreme Being. Rudolf Otto was more realistic when he referred to the mysterium tremendum et fascinans.

rossum