Existence and evidence

[Nullasalus]

That’s the same claim. Not contrary at all. What would you consider evidence for “mindless development” of the universe? We have an ever growing body of observation and knowledge that supports the operation of the universe as automata – proceeding according to law rather than will. But as you said, you can always surmise there is a will underneath any law. If that’s the case, what would you expect to see as “evidence for the positive claim of mindless fundamental physical luck / eternity as a creative force”?

Already answered: I would expect to see none. Considering automata is actively and happily employed by even we human designers, the idea that the existence of automata itself is somehow evidence of a mindless fundamental origin of our universe is laughable. If there is a God, certainly a God as even deists and classical theists conceived, there is no such thing as automata operating entirely free of will. But if there is no God - if there is fundamental, universe-starting/sustaining mindless force - we have no evidence of it. It goes against common intuition and undeniable evidence, it exists as a force we’re unfamiliar with - because design is the one thing we can be certain of.

Again: This doesn’t prove God exists. It just establishes deism as intellectually more reasonable than atheism.

It’s valuable as pedagogy. We can see through the FSM (and the like) who “powerful” invented answers can be, and how illusory that “power” is if demands are not made for the actuality of the agent as means of proceeding. If you don’t have to establish the reality of your agents as part of the explanation, you can “reason” your way to anything you want! Also sprach FSM.

Too bad everything the FSM establishes in that vein equally applies to the atheist’s conception of our existence’s origin. ‘I can imagine the universe coming into existence in a past event of lucky unguided sprung-from-nothinghood, or just an unfalsifiable proposition of backwards-eternality!’ It’s the spaghetti universe.

FSM is a lame joke made by an angry atheist. Repeated so many times now that even other atheists are getting tired of hearing about it. It’s the Yakov Smirnov of slurs.

OK, well what is this mysterious entity then. My understanding is that the universe may be an uncaused cause in its own right, and thus a single entity, a unity, a monad. If that’s the case, how do you get two entities out of that? The universe, and what, specifically?

You have a choice between two entities as an atheist - ‘mindless eternal pre-existence’ or ‘mindless popping out of nothingness’. These are events, origins, entities. That you file them all under ‘Part of the universe, therefore it’s one with the universe, therefore there’s just one entity compared to two’ is as satisfying is ‘The universe is part of God, therefore God comprises everything, therefore there’s just one entity compared to two’.

As I said, I can play that game as well and argue all things in my cosmology comprises a single actual thing. But intellectually, the origin occupies a particular frame of reference, it’s a particular proposed entity. Should we file both options of ‘eternally pre-existing’ and ‘popped out of nothingness at a finite point in the past’ somehow the same exact thing, because both are atheistic descriptions of the same universe? Or do you get out of it by saying in such a case you’re comparing one universe to another - in which case the theist/deist just argues the totality of their explanation is one more single universe in the running.

Theistic recipe for existence of our reality:

1. One creator deity
2. universe, created by, and distinct from (1).

False.

Atheistic recipe for existence of our reality:

1. universe.

Maybe you can correct the atheist bill of materials in terms of entities for me?

Theistic recipe for existence of our reality:

1. One deity immanent throughout all of our universe and existing in part beyond it.

Atheistic recipe for our universe:

1. One exceptionally lucky universe.

And even if you stick to your guns and insist the theistic recipe absolutely should be two, you still are left with a cosmology that has far less supporting it intellectually, and always will.

I have a hard time believing you don’t see the reductio here; what is the origin of God, then? Please don’t tell me it’s a ‘brute fact’, as that simply announces self-indulgence on your part, obvious special pleading.

As opposed to your strained philosophical gymnastics and downplaying of evidence and reason when it doesn’t suit you?

Funny how you didn’t ask if the deity explanation requires luck - because it obviously doesn’t. Included with MD is a rational mind, which provides a non-luck explanation of the universe having the properties it does, and fits both the intuitions and existence of PD itself. The problem here isn’t merely citing brute fact - both of us have to do it. It’s how awkward the fact is. The atheist’s is inelegant to say the least.

We do not know mind exists prior to the development and appearance of mind as a physical phenomenon. If you dispute that, than please show me how to verify the existence of mind prior to the evolution of the brain, or whatever you might call the “mind-maker” for some form of sentient life somewhere else in the universe.

Considering the philosophers of mind - atheists included - have lately been given to explanations of panpsychism, proto-panpsychism, property dualism, and otherwise to explain issues related to mind, I find this charge highly amusing. Doubly so since you brought up SETI as an example of principled design-detection - I guess SETI isn’t an intellectually sustainable project in your view, then, since it presupposes a mind without evidence?

Now, I can provide reasons to think that a mind does not necessarily take the form of an evolved brain as we know it - unless you’re about to reject the idea of AI having a mind. And I’ve repeated that I can’t prove the existence of this fundamental-mind origin I’m talking about, anymore than you can prove the existence of mindless origin. I can actually provide a model, however - simulation. Amusingly, you can’t even provide a model: As far as you can get is creating a simulation, and then telling people “Now, so long as you imagine I wasn’t involved in this, the model works!”

Solipsism is necessary to reject as a practical matter, and just isn’t relevant beyond covering logical possibilities. Reality is real, as the smell of burning hair from your fingers will attest.

Irrelevant as a practical matter? The solipsist can engulf all of the ‘practical matter’ within his solipsism if he intends to. His pain may be real - the fire doesn’t need to be. Put someone under hypnosis and tell them they got burned - they’ll react in kind. It really IS in their head in that situation, but that means nothing. To the solipsist, there’s no practical difference between the experience of pain under hypnosis and the experience of pain under another situation.

Let me guess - you burned your hand in order to disprove solipsism? If so, that’s comedy writ large.

Do you write software? This is a virtual system, so “actual truth” is undefined until it’s reified as a matter of code in the virtual system.

As I said - if you’re asserting to me that 2+2=5 truly sometimes, so long as you get your programming right, my response is to laugh. I can’t even take you seriously. I notice that requested ‘I made a circle triangle!’ program isn’t forthcoming either.

I suspect you are thinking ‘true’ must be somehow cloned from P-existence.

You’re wrong. 2+2=4 independent of P-existence. It’s true in all realities. Sorry, I’m a realist about mathematical truths, among other things.

I’ll get to your other points as time allows, but this stuck out as an important question. What does ‘actually true’ mean when we are building a NON-ACTUAL context, a virtual universe?

Are you saying simulations don’t really exist / aren’t actual, just because they’re simulations? Again, ridiculous. If we’re in a simulation right now, our reality is still actual. It doesn’t become somehow ‘non-actual’ just because our P-existence != PRG-existence in practice.

 

[Camron]

Supernaturalism is entirely coherent and performative. Go back to your simulation. Meddle with it. From sim-existence’s perspective, meddling by P-existence in sim-existence (Even only in theory) is ‘supernatural’ - it’s a force outside of their existence interfering. If you turn around and say ‘Yes, but P is a subset of sim, therefore it’s all P, and the meddling is natural’, you simply establish that any act on God’s part in our world can be defined as ‘natural’. No problem by my measure.

Very well said Nullasalus.

I agree completely and I see no problem with the logic involved in this reasoning. This is the soundest position given the limits of our knowledge. To those who might dissent, keep in mind that this is not a claim to absolute knowledge. This is only where the logic most reasonably leads given the current state of our human experience—and I don’t foresee this position changing anytime soon either. :heaven:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Anyway, I can’t be bothered with word games. I’m happy to stimulate that the “universe is a designer”, if that’s the nomenclature you want to insist on, so long as we can understand that a “designer” may be a wholly impersonal, physical system.

A designer is not the design a designer designs.

No “wholly impersonal physical system” can be an answer to the question of the CREATION of the universe. It COULD indeed be the answer to the question of the (normal) OPERATION of the universe, but how does the “wholly impersonal physical system” come about in the first place (which brings us back to the question we’re actually dealing with which is CREATION and NOT OPERATION)?

That’s fine by me, and that sense, I’d say the universe shows exquisitely complex and beautiful marks of being “designed”, and that includes you and me. Could God have designed something that fits with an impersonal designer hypothesis? I guess so, it’s always a possibility. But here is where you start painting God as superfluous, a rather obvious infusion of desire or other outside commitments.

It’s (God is) not needed as part of a minimal, efficient, explanation – and that’s not even to raise all the questions implicated by such imports, theodicies and logical conundra by the bushel.

The co-called atheist thinks that the universe is a “minimalistic maximally efficient machine”.

If that’s true then God is unnecessary for the OPERATION of the universe, but still necessary for it’s initial creation.

UNLESS, you consider that the universe is a materialistic perpetual motion machine existing for an infinite time (backwards and forwards).

If you believe that, then you have invoked the “ultimate cop-out” of “infinitudes” and simply (and effectively) avoided the question on the table (universal creation qua creation) and contributed NOTHING to any understanding of creation whatsoever.

Once again, the so-called atheist’s goal is to simply side-step the “ludicrous question” (to him) on the table, which no one should trouble themselves with because of the “insanity” that considering it entails.

The so-called atheist sees religion as “dangerous”, because it has proven to be VERY destructive when “done wrong”. The so-called atheist considers that ANY “doing” of religion is “doing it wrong”, of course, due to accepting no guidance as to the proper “doing” of religion from divine revelation.

Therefore, ALL expressions of religion are to be demeaned as “dangerous mental illness” which ALWAYS produces “evil”.

(( Of course EVERY expression of religion which isn’t Catholic IS to some extent “dangerous”, because it IS “doing religion” wrong, which I will certainly stipulate IS indeed dangerous. ))

The problem for the so-called atheist is that in practice what he ends up replacing “theistic” religion with is “avoid-ian” religion, where “avoid-ian” means that there shall be no claims for authority made that aren’t utterly physical in nature, which ALWAYS reduces to “might makes right” in the area of behavioral choice (morals), and “engineering trumps wisdom” (utility trumps “good”) in manipulation of society.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullasalus
And the lack of design in every case you list - teardrop or mountain - is based entirely on assumption with no evidence to back it up. “Proximal” telic intervention or its lack proves nothing here, anymore than the lack of an intelligent agent stuffing molecules of sugar into bacteria is necessary to prove that fermentation is a telic process.

Well, out with it, then. What would you consider evidence that supports the impersonal design hypothesis? You said previously:

“I said outright, it’s quite possible that there is no Designer, no God, etc.”

If you believe that, what would be evidence or test-based support for that conclusion?

It’s easy to provide evidence that supports IMPERSONAL OPERATION of the universe, which is what you’re asking for, but it’s simply NOT possible to supply evidence for any “IMPERSONAL CREATION via design” of the universe without evoking either an infinitude (which invalidates any actual CREATION and just avoids the question) or a “creation ex nihilo” (which is a THEOLOGICAL concept and invalidates the “explanation” as purely materialistic).

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

Touchstone:

I’ll get to your other points as time allows, but this stuck out as an important question. What does ‘actually true’ mean when we are building a NON-ACTUAL
context, a virtual universe?

Just had to come out of lurkdom to say hi. Glad you made it over here!

Don’t let him fool you, folks. He’s a good guy at heart, even when annoyingly disagreeable…

Anyway carry on! This forum has given me lots of brain food, and I see more food for thought to come…

Kim

 

[CatsAndDogs]

But it doesn’t stop there. We can wonder who designed God, and there’s similarly no falsifying the idea that someone designed God, and God just isn’t aware. And the God-Designer has a designer too, we might suppose, and it’s impossible to discount that possibility, and on and on and on…

And you are perfectly correct IF you don’t have a founded belief in divine revelation.

God has told us that this creation was created for us as our environment for His pleasure and that as far as we are to know He is Himself singular and uncreated in the way that we are created critters.

But, if one finds no need of listening to such “unfalsifiable drivel”, then one is “free” to endure the consequences of said not-listening.

This is a poverty rather than a strength. That’s why liability to falsification is so important; without it, you not narrowed your phase space for solutions at all. In any case, you suggest that there is some kind of evidence needed to show that God doesn’t exist as a telic substrate for something like the design of a raindrop falling through the air. What evidence would suffice for you to support this, I wonder?

The evidence that would suffice to prove that God is not necessary for the “designing” of a raindrop falling through the air would be the nonexistence of the matter constituting the raindrop.

The raindrop is not designed, but the universe that “informs” (that operates such that) the raindrop occuring as a raindrop is designed (created) to “force” raindrops to be raindrops.

There may be instances where some more “direct” tweaking of our matter/energy/ruleset is necessary to acheive some “re-design work” (post inital creation work) to fulfil some God-deemed-necessary “thing” which wouldn’t have been possible through the “normal” means of the workings of creation.

The proof that creation was created by design is that creation exists. The proof that creation operates from a design is that it operates as designed.

Both “proofs” are not proofs at all to the materialist because they consider “creation” a silly idea a priori because the universe is just an ever running machine which has no beginning and has no end.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

What forms of design do we know to exist that does not include the identification of a designer, and by that just the humble observationt that the designer is actually extant? Design theology is categorically different from the design inference made from the connection between chipped stone arrowheads and the bones of hominids found just a few meters away. There, we have evidence of the actuality of a designer that justifies the conclusion of design. That predicate is conspicuously lacking in theism.

The “bones” of God are found in the “orderliness” of the “arrowheads” of creation.

The actuality of the designer is found in the fact that actual reality is unfalsifiable.

Evidence of a being who is omnipotent is only that which He specifically LEAVES as evidence of Himself. He chooses, quite sensibly, to leave no “materialistically conclusive” evidence of Himself, most likely because that would warp human behavior into something He sees as “not good”, and contrary to His purposes for us.

You look for “human-like” bones as proof of God-like existence to assign a designer to a thing (the universe) which displays all the characteristics of having been designed, when the “more economical” conclusion is that a God-like designer designed His creation?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This is the basis for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a rhetorical device. It’s completely, admittedly made up, and yet has perfect explanatory power! It’s weakness is only it’s “made-up-ness”.

Not true. It’s REAL weakness is in it’s “not-confirmable-ness”.

It is not confirmable because, were it THE “God”, and was the sincere object of prayer it would have the effect of creating the Catholic Church (being simply the Church of THE God), which it has yet to do.

It’s important to realize that “capability to explain” apart from grounding in actuality is epistemically void. We can suppose all manner of “capable explanations” if we are unbound by the demands of showing the actuality of the agents and forces introduced by that explanation.

And this is where the unbeliever chooses to see no proof of the ACTUALITY of God because he won’t do the work necessary to have it given to him.

The materialist wants proof “on paper” and discounts any proof which is not communicable person to person.

That there exist proofs which are not person to person, but only God to person communicable is a fact that the so-called atheist in utterly immune to accepting.

The funny thing is that his acceptance of his “perpetual motion machine” and/or his creation ex nihilo “EXPLANATIONS” (aka dodges) of the creation of the universe are proofs of the exact same nature as our God-to-person-communicable proofs.

He believes them because “they feel right”.

The consequences of our respective beliefs believed because we each “feel they are right” is the only measure of there actual (reality based) “rightness”.

What “system of operation” does atheism set up versus that of TRUE religion (Catholic)?

…and here we get into a battle of “interpretational history”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Theism doesn’t help in this regard. As a Christian, my answer was to invoke God as the infinitude, as the Uncaused Cause. When an atheist asked me “who caused God”, I had to resort to precisely what you are calling a “cop out” in delivering a theistic answer. Who made God? Noone, of course!

But God is not an infinitude. He is the “stop”, the final support of reality.

When asked who caused God the answer is not “God caused God” but rather “You don’t understand what God means, do you?”

Somehow, as a theist, I was granted a free pass in introducing uncaused causes, a pass I wasn’t willing to grant to other uncaused causes. If God can be uncaused, then why would anything else be denied “uncaused existence”?

As a so-called atheist, you can NEVER introduce any uncaused causes (other than the one not necessary to not explain where the perpetual motion machine universe came from).

As a Christian, we have only one uncaused cause, and to ask what caused the singular uncaused cause is to not understand wthe meaning of “uncaused cause”.

This is a conundrum for theists, and devolves down to precisely the delivery of the kind of ‘cop outs’ they decry. If you dispute this, then tell me who caused God, and how you know that’s the case.

You don’t understand what God means, do you?

Nor what “uncaused cause” means, do you?

Once you know what those terms mean, then you’ll understand why asking for the cause of an uncaused cause IS the introduction of an infinitude, and why God is NOT an infinitude.

Only materialists introduce infinitudes, and they do so only to evade dealing with the question on the table.

The very basis of materialism is that there is always another “deeper” hidden layer to reality which REALLY explains the reality of reality. That is their introduction of an infinitude of entities to “deal with” (by avoidance) the question of existence at all.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
The so-called atheistic “material order has always (infnitely) existed” is a simple dodge to avoid the question, and is “theological” (religious) in it’s nature in that it has “faith” that it’s OK to not address the problem of creation in anything but (our) materialistic terms.

We have coherent concepts with which to approach the natural world – materialism. We can understand “exists” to mean something like “extended in space/time”, a short yet very robust measure for separating what exists from what doesn’t exist, conceptually. That definition may not be complete, but it is at least coherent, meaningful.

And I agree with you that when inquiring into MATERIAL it’s best to use the normal meanings of “materialism” and “exists” as you suggest.

That is what I do every day. I don’t look for divine causes for normal material happenings! Does that surprise you?

The problem is that the religiously materialistic person tries to apply “materialism” to “God-stuff”, which is a simple type mismatch operational error.

I wouldn’t try to train tsunamis like I’d try to train a pomeranian!

Apply rules where they apply, and don’t apply them where they return nonsensical results.

When looking at the question of ‘creation’ – a loaded term in its own right, but certainly more compact than something like ‘coming-into-existence’ – we are not avoiding the question by admitting we have no epistemic basis for understanding those metaphysics. That’s why we put the ‘meta-’ in front of the ‘physics’, there; it transcends our conceptual and epistemic capabilities.

So, do you have an answer to the question of “creation”, or do you have a non-answer?

Is your answer that the universe has always existed?

Is it that the question of the “creation” of the universe is simply “silly”? Why is it silly?

Is it that you just haven’t a clue, and yet choose to believe that God as a solution is unacceptable? Why is it unacceptable if you have no clue?

Let’s get down to some real “blue flame on the palm” as to what you DO believe, OK?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
The so-called atheistic “order simple arose from non-order” is simply a restatement of the theological concept of creation from nothing, with the (bizarre) twist that nothing did the work of creating creation.

It’s only ‘bizarre’ as a matter of anthropomorphising the natural world.

Inside this universe,…

Are you proposing that the meaning of “universe” is not “all of everything that is”?

…it looks very much like something does NOT come from nothing – matter is conserved, so far as we can tell, for example. But that has absolutely no bearing on the outer context,

There is no “outer context” of the universe, as far as MATTER is concerned, which is all that you propose that there IS, so are you about to speak about something that you a priori CLAIM IS NONEXISTENT?

…and is not justified as a metaphysical constraint. To say that "something cannot come from nothing*, as a matter of metaphysics rather than physics is impossible to do defend, pure caprice.

From your aforesaying (aforesaid thing just above ), METAPHYSICS is absolute drivel to you, so what do you mean by “not justified as a metaphysical constraint” if anything to do with metaphysics to you is “not justified”?

Quote:
The materialist objects to God as being “too powerful”, and then complains that there is no entity (mind) powerful enough to do what God must be able to do.

I’m not aware of that as an objection. I think the objection is that God is not verifiable as existing, or even bring with Him a concept of “exist” that is nominally coherent.

God is certainly NOT verifiable in a materialistic way, and that’s because He is powerful enough to make sure that He isn’t verifiable in that way.

If one can make sure that He can’t be materialistically verified as existing, then the materialist should be simply complaining that God is God, and shouldn’t be complaining that God doesn’t exist.

Your definition of the word “exists” needs some tuning.

Quote:
It could easily be said that we humans are TOO POWERFUL, from a sims point of view, to have created ALL EXISTENCE (some sim universe), because a sim has no way to understand how we humans can “weave” our thoughts into their “existence”.

Sorry, didn’t understand that paragraph!

Any being who has abject total control over his creation can certainly appear to his creation’s inhabitants as omnipotent (which some sims would object to as a term because of it’s “meaninglessness”) even if he isn’t truly omnipotent in his own context.

Omipotence in one’s own context does not preclude omnipotence in his one’s creation’s context.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Do you understand the difference between ANSWERING a question and AVOIDING a question?

I think I do. The question is an intractable one – even in principle. We don’t have access to “metaphysical knowledge”, and thus are completely unjustified in any conclusions we may arrive at about how the outer context – the layer above P-existence, if any – works.

I agree with you absolutely 100%!!

We ARE completely unjustified in OUR (WORKED OUT) conclusions as to the workings of God-stuff!

But we are justified in stating that the universe SEEMS to be really quite extraordinarily orderly, and regular in following whatever rules it does follow.

The “leap” to concluding that God-stuff is real, that it exists, that the “outer context” is real, is known ONLY by having it REVEALED to us by one who can do so. The confirmation that this communication with this “revealer” is real is only to be found within each one of us after doing what is required to do to receive it.

The materialist dismisses doing what needs doing to get this confirmation. The Catholic does the leg work.

If I ask you what number results from dividing 1 by 0, I suppose I could claim that you were “avoiding the question” when you answered “undefined” or “not-a-number”. But that would just be an expression of a conceptual failing on my part.

I’m not saying that infinitudes (infinities) don’t exist as necessary results of logical operations, but when they appear they are pointing to a “thin spot” in the logic in operation, which is there ONLY because that operation is somehow indicative of some aspect of God’s nature.

The idea of “no thing” being maximally fitted into “a thing” is the very expression of God’s ability of super-abundance!

God is not limited in what He can give any of His creations.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
The “economy of the No-Designer” proposition is to simply NOT answer the question of creation. That is more ECONOMICAL of the “answer’s” (the materialist’s) TIME and energy because it doesn’t even attempt to formulate an answer.

I think it’s quite the opposite, actually. For me, supposing that God – an impassible God, at that – was the answer was sufficient – that’s the beauty and the curse of over-powerful answers.

God is the answer to only one question: What (Who) created the universe?

No other questions are answered by God. We’re still responsible for digging for all other answers to those questions which occur to us.

But on the materialist view, we have very little to work with. There’s no “Goddidit” hand waving to do – you have the observed dynamics of nature working as impersonal automata, and that’s it.

You see the “fingerprints of God” (the orderliness) as “obeyance to rules” (which the “automata” follow) and not as pointers toward God because it’s inconvenient/uncomfortable to see what you see in any other way.

Explaining the development of man as a biological organism requires enormous investments of research, digging, analysis, testing, as there are no miracles or divine fiats to appeal to. Miracles makes anything a snap.

Do you somehow believe that being a believer makes one (as a believer) think that “all questions have been answered”, and/or that since believers don’t get miraculous answers to their questions they don’t HAVE questions about the workings of (physical) reality?

Catholic “answers” to what it means to be a human being have no effect on Catholics wanting answers to the physical realities of human biological existence on this planet.

Developing an explanation based on natural law for something so complex as a human is a lot of work.

Yes it is, and those parts of what being human means that are purely physical require materialistic methods to uncover and explain.

Once again, the so-called atheist shows his religion’s NEED to claim there is a war between religion and science, when there really is none!

They need to do this because they need to make sure that no “non-materialistic” intrusions limit their behaviors to “search” due to “morality”.

But the economy I was speaking of had nothing to do with being lazy or evasive, but efficient in getting the most explanation and performance out of the least entities and resources.

A problem arises, though, when you’re being efficient by searching for your glasses under the lampost because it’s “more lit” when your glasses are in the middle of the street in the dark.

It is a false economy to use principles meant for one area of inquiry in another area of inquiry where they don’t apply simply because one is commited to never using any other set of principles than the one one uses.

Materialistic principles are wonderful tools where they apply, but they are not applicable in the area of God-stuff.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
It is NOT a more economical ANSWER to the question, though!

The so-called atheist’s position is like saying that it’s more “economical” to never drive to the store for food because doing so uses less gasoline.

The problem with that “economy” is that one needs FOOD, not fewer coin spent on gasoline!

That’s a problem, then, as if your analogy holds, we NEED to know the metaphysics of creation. Yet, we aren’t in a position, conceptually, epistemically to even hope for such an answer. It’s far over the event horizon for humans.

That is precisely right!

We DO need to know the metaphysics of creation, and we are given those metaphysics as a gift.

We can choose to NEED to derive those needed metaphysics ourselves, which is what the atheistic materialist is trying to do, and he will indeed ALWAYS be hopelessly incapable of getting that needed answer, due to his conceptual and epistemical position! It IS truly utterly “over the event horizon” for HE WHO DEMANDS THAT HE DERIVE THE NEEDED KNOWLEDGE OF GOD HIMSELF.

We can make leaps of faith, and entertain all manner of conjecture, but that’s all the farther we can get, because the foundations of knowledge do not extend into metaphysics – that’s why we call it “metaphysics”.

Yet, we are capable of receiving such knowledge by revelation. That’s WHY we call it “revelation”.

If we MUST know the constraints and dynamics of the outer context for the origination of the universe, if any, we have an insuperable problem, because “know” is an intrisic to the universe itself, and we’ve no basis for supposing that “know” has any meaning at all beyond it.

We are capable of this “know” which no other portion of the universe is capable of possessing because God has included in us the ability to have this “know”.

This is what distinguishes us FROM all other creations within the universe.

And really, the metaphysics are quite simple. They amount to knowing a few mysteries, and simply following a few rather simple behavioral rules. Not much else is necessary to receive our “food”.

We “intellectual types” will of course want more “meat” by way of explanation, but it’s all gravy after accepting that only God can give us the knowledge of what we need and has done so via His Church which we then need to heed as to our behavior.

 

[Touchstone]

Wonderful. You’ve just told me that you’re an experienced liar, and what’s more, you’re stubborn to the point of being able to engage in self-deception on the order of decades. All in the hopes of insinuating that theists are self-deceiving liars. I’ll be sure to make a note of that.

An experienced liar is just a human that’s been around a while. I value honesty highly, and it is that which I claim has primarily driven my abandonment of 30 years of Christian faith. And I do think that my faith was a tool I employed in my own self-deception. That’s the fruits of creduility. Skepticism is no guarantee against self-deception, but it does afford the bearer mechanisms and processes that protect from deception and self-deception. Objective verification, for example, can be a useful filter in identifying cases where subjectivity is an invitation to self-deception.

You’ve done no such thing. In fact, by admitting to the rationality of simulations in both the sim-existence case and the PRG-existence case, you’ve ceded that such a conception of “supernatural reality” is entirely reasonable. You do realize that there’s no firm universal definition of the supernatural, yes? It’s something even theologians of the same faith argue about.

I don’t know of any defintions of supernatural that are coherent at all. That’s been a significant part of coming clean over my self-deceptions regarding faith. When I worked to tease out a meaningful, no-BS definition of what it means to be ‘real’ in a supernatural sense, I failed to come up with anything coherent. I asked a great number of people, including some notable names in Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics, and as this was part of the process of becoming a Catholic – that was the plan at the time – I focused on Catholic believers and thinkers for answers. The failure to come up with anything even remotely workable was a hard pill to swallow.

You’ve failed terribly on this count. And you’re conflating atheism with materialism; atheists need not be materialists.

I’m aware of the difference. Materialism implies atheism, or at least non-supernaturalism, and that’s sufficient for making my points.

Considering 1/4th of the atheists in a recent US poll said they believe in God, it’d be news to some atheists. Further, I’m asserting that many atheists are wholly ignorant of just what is entailed by the position they hold. I think this has become more obvious through this conversation.

That may be, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion. How many Christians do you suppose would say the believed simultaneously in free will and predestination?

You’re confusing ‘the universe’ with ‘the origin of the universe.’ They’re not the same thing. Again, you have two options as an atheist: “Popped out of nothingness and luckily it had all the right properties to give rise to be coherent, last long, and give rise to life and life that realizes the power of design” or “Existed eternally, lucked out and had all the right properties to continue to exist for eternity and give rise to all we know, and mind did not co-exist with it”. I don’t envy the intellectual position; takes too much mind-bending.

It may be that our universe is just one bubble in cosmic froth, part of what Leonard Susskind called the the Cosmic Landscape in his book The Cosmic Landscape and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. The universe may be self-caused and wholly impersonal its causation. The universe may be a kind of quantum simulation as suggested by Seth Lloyd. It may be the work of a supernatural deity. These answers are beyond our epistemic perimeter. But “likely” for any one over another is a divide by zero error – there’s no denominator for gauging the phase space or the probabilities at the metaphysical level. We may well find a designer more comfortable and friendly as an idea, because we are anthropomorphs, and have strong tendencies toward anthropomorphization. But that’s not a reasoned basis for calling it “more reasonable”, just more probable as a view we embrace, due to its soothing comfort to our anthropomorphic sensibilities.

-Touchstone

 

[Nullasalus]

An experienced liar is just a human that’s been around a while. I value honesty highly, and it is that which I claim has primarily driven my abandonment of 30 years of Christian faith. And I do think that my faith was a tool I employed in my own self-deception. That’s the fruits of creduility. Skepticism is no guarantee against self-deception, but it does afford the bearer mechanisms and processes that protect from deception and self-deception. Objective verification, for example, can be a useful filter in identifying cases where subjectivity is an invitation to self-deception.

Wonderful. I have no reason to accept any of this, and maybe the result of your trying to gain some credibility by citing your decades-long self-deception and experience in lying will illustrate why you should keep your personal credentials holstered in discussion. And I say this as someone who, frankly, now occupies a better position in the discussion since you’ve done it. You’re saying “I value honestly highly! But an experienced liar is just a human that’s been around awhile. Honesty and open-mindedness has led me to the position I now hold. I should know, I deluded myself and others for 30 years unknowingly.”

Better to not even bother with this line.

I don’t know of any defintions of supernatural that are coherent at all. That’s been a significant part of coming clean over my self-deceptions regarding faith. When I worked to tease out a meaningful, no-BS definition of what it means to be ‘real’ in a supernatural sense, I failed to come up with anything coherent. I asked a great number of people, including some notable names in Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics, and as this was part of the process of becoming a Catholic – that was the plan at the time – I focused on Catholic believers and thinkers for answers. The failure to come up with anything even remotely workable was a hard pill to swallow.

Well, I just gave you a workable definition and understanding of supernatural. By all means, point out the flaws if you like. I wouldn’t be surprised that many people, even philosophers, didn’t give a satisfactory definition - the big names I know across the board in Christian/Catholic philosophy hardly spend any time on questions of the supernatural. They’re typically more concerned with other topics, and try their best to have as inclusive a view as possible on those particular topics.

It’s not like Catholicism or Christianity or deism stands or falls based on its ability to provide certain, falsifiable answers to all questions. Or that materialism itself isn’t rife, utterly rife, with unsatisfactory questions, by the standards of many materialists.

I’m aware of the difference. Materialism implies atheism, or at least non-supernaturalism, and that’s sufficient for making my points.

Considering what we know about simulation, it no longer does.

That may be, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion. How many Christians do you suppose would say the believed simultaneously in free will and predestination?

Plenty. I doubt they thought about it all that deeply - I’m pleasantly surprised when any person, regardless of faith or lack of it, understands the difference between compatiblist free-will and libertarian.

It may be that our universe is just one bubble in cosmic froth, part of what Leonard Susskind called the the Cosmic Landscape in his book The Cosmic Landscape and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. The universe may be self-caused and wholly impersonal its causation. The universe may be a kind of quantum simulation as suggested by Seth Lloyd. It may be the work of a supernatural deity. These answers are beyond our epistemic perimeter. But “likely” for any one over another is a divide by zero error – there’s no denominator for gauging the phase space or the probabilities at the metaphysical level. We may well find a designer more comfortable and friendly as an idea, because we are anthropomorphs, and have strong tendencies toward anthropomorphization. But that’s not a reasoned basis for calling it “more reasonable”, just more probable as a view we embrace, due to its soothing comfort to our anthropomorphic sensibilities.

And I’m arguing otherwise. First, it’s worth noting that Leonard Susskind in that title out and out admits to the appearance of design in the world - quite possibly, on a grand scale (I’ve not read the book, so I don’t know where the ‘illusion’ he thinks is). Second, Susskind and Lloyd’s examples remain what they always are - potential tools for any designer. I haven’t argued, not once in this thread, that we should assume design because it’s emotionally preferable. I’ve argued purely based on the evidence that we do have, and the evidence we could ever hope to have.

Maybe you should consider changing your position. Utter agnosticism would be an improvement over out and out atheism, in terms of both reasonability and open-mindedness. Hey, you can be a deist and still attack christians all you want. It’s, sadly, a time-honored tradition - I suspect that a good number of the ‘atheists’ who answered that they believe in God was due to that nonsense about ‘Everyone is an atheist about other people’s gods’ resulting in an amusing misunderstanding.

 

[Touchstone]

On a) :
“Supernatural reality” IS indeed incoherent to those who have no need for the universe to be a “coherent thing”. The problem is that this DOESN’T describe YOU!

OK, I take this to mean you think I am speaking incoherently, here?

The so-called atheist simply “pushes back” the question of creation (origin) into the “fog” of “irrelevant to me”-land, and believes ON FAITH that whatever the REAL answer to the question of creation, the universe IS a coherent whole which is “believable in it’s predictability” as being “where we should be” (aka “the mostly friendly universe” theory").

I think the questions about our origin are important and relevant ones for living today. But it’s not necessary to fabricate an answer just because it’s an important question. We can, and should, if we want to live by reason, admit that the question is inscrutable to us a direct question. It’s ‘over the event horizon’, for us. Sometimes, the most reasonable disposition is just being honest about the position we are in – we are not epistemically equipped to provide reliable answers on this question.

The universe seems largely intelligible, allowing for what can only be called some ‘surreal’ aspects of quantum electrodynamics. Even that is really just a reflection of our own “rut” we fall into as humans, thinking like humans as we should; spooky action at distance is quite far removed from the practical cognitive demands of human life. It’s law based just like the rest of nature, but takes some work to tie up as “intelligible”.

But that’s our universe. The uniformity or symmetry of law inside our universe does not apply by necessity to anything outside it, if there is anything outside it.

On b) :
If the so-called atheistic (materialistic) “explanation” (which is actually a non-explanation, as the Question is about CREATION and not present existence) is:

1. “Material order has existed for infinite time as a perpetual motion machine”, then there are NO entites, as “all is deterministic”.

Maybe we need to visit the semantics of ‘entity’. By entity, I mean a thing that is discrete in the ontological sense from some other thing, or all other things. It may be contingent, or completely deterministic, and still be a separate entity, or not. Determinism and causation are orthogonal considerations to the ontological distinctions being drawn. The universe may be completely “predetermined” in exhaustive detail by a creative, sovereign God, but that doesn’t remove it’s “entity-ness”. The universe is still a separate something apart from God. Nullasalus seems to be hesitant to commit to this, but I think that’s a matter of polemic expediency. Certainly orthodox Christianity does not confuse God with His creation.

1. “Order just HAPPENED from nothing!”, then there are HUGE numbers of “creational entities” possible (at LEAST one per “universe”) as there is no limit to the possible number of universes.

Could be. We don’t have any way to apprise ourselves of the constraints of the governing metaphysic, if any. As a Christian, I would have said either “God just happened from nothing”, or, if I wanted to hew more closely to theological nuances, God just always was, and is “uncaused from nothing”. It’s odd how that just doesn’t even register with so many Christians as analogous to an uncaused universe from nothing. An uncaused universe they just can’t wrap their heads around, but an uncaused mind or deity, no problem.

Required to do WHAT? We’re talking about “creating creation” here. You propose that there are NO (zero) creative entities.

I don’t know if there were zero or more entities involved in purposeful creation. It’s not a question that has evidence attached, or more precisely, it’s a question that thwarts the usual utility of evidence itself. We don’t know what the metaphysics are, and we don’t have empirical demonstrations or tests that make God a reasonable inference.

Having NOTHING create creation is NOT more “economical”, because you simply replace a “thing” with a “void”, where a “void” is a special-case of a “thing”!

That’s the heart of parsimony, though. If you can provide an explanation with a “nothing-as-a-special-case-of-thing”, that’s preferable. A nothing is a special case of thing, if you want to frame it that way, special as it is the theoretically max for economy in terms of entities. Non-existence is as minimal as you can get in terms of existing as an entity, right?

It’s precisely AS economical to claim that “a thing” created creation as it is to claim that “a thing” created creation.

Not if the creator and creation are two separate entities. That’d be two (2) entities required for the explanation. If the universe is “self-causing” and self-developing, it would remain a single entity, even so. That’d be one (1) entity, which is less than two (2) entities.

As I told Nullasalus, it may be more economical in terms of parsimony, yet be incorrect (I gave an example of Newtonian physics being more simple yet inferior with respect to GR). Parsimony is not truth. But it seems we are to get bogged down on simply agreeing what the cardinality of entities is, here, alas.

But the “void” as creator doesn’t do the work required for an answer to the question, which is “how was the creation created”!?

It may not, but it may. If I suppose the metaphysics are such that universes just appear out of the void – the Big Bang was a fantastically small, high energy, low entropy blip – I think there is no framework of constraints by which one might say “metaphysics don’t work that way”. That’d be committing a major error, and projecting the causality dynamics of our universe outside of our universe. It may be that universes just pop out of nothing in the metaverse, as that’s the nature of the metaverse. It may not be the case, but the point is we have no reasonable choice other than agnosticism on the matter.

The proposed “void” merely sidesteps the question, without answering it at all.

When you don’t have a reasonable basis for an answer, what do you say? Would you rather make something up?

Why is “doing the least you can do” a relevant “economizing behavior” if what one is DOING is NOT DOING anything relevant to the question on the table?

OK, you got me with that one. You’ll have to re-phrase that, I couldn’t grok it.

The entire purpose of being a so-called atheist is to find other things to do, anything else to do, to avoid dealing with the “creation” question.

I think the creation question is a key issue that made my theism untenable. It’s much harder to deal with without the trite “Goddidit”, but that’s a basis for sustained interest, I think.

If the question on the table IS the “creation” question, the absolute BEST thing that the so-called atheist should consider DOING in response to being asked his opinion about “creation” is to state that he hasn’t a clue about it and can’t make any statements one way or the other either for or against any “claim” other than that reality does indeed seem to exist.

That’s not far from my position. Pre-creation explanations are unattached to epistemically sound foundations. We do not only NOT know how it happened, we don’t have a basis for knowing what happened. That’s a very tall wall to scale, in terms of epistemology.

That being the case, there’s little to no basis for concluding there’s any God or gods, or that the term ‘supernatural’ even can bear the semantic freight of coherent definitions for terms like ‘exist’, ‘true’ and ‘real’.

But, the so-called atheist decides to chime in with a positive statement that, “God qua Christian God” CAN’T exist because…" at which point the so-called atheist states some anti-Christian-God religious doctrine.

I don’t know what atheists say that. That’s not my position. I’m consistently pointing out that the non-existence of God is not subject to being proved or demonstrated, even in principle.

We can’t disprove God. We can survey the evidence and reasonably conclude we are without justification to believe that any gods or supernatural anythings are real or actual.

Both the so-called atheist and the Christian God believer believe that reality is reality, and that there is only one reality. It is the cornerstone of BOTH religions (belief systems).

That’s right. As a Christian, I was wholly committed to the reality of reality. I just was committed to the reality of the supernatural as well, committed to the ‘reality of unreality’ as an annex to my materialist reality.

Proving that “reality can burn” is not proof of the nonexistence of God.

Emphatically agree.

But only the Christian (God qua God believer) can tell you WHY “reality can burn” and the actual moral meaning of the fact that “reality can burn”.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster can tell me why reality can burn too. Explanations are trivial when they are unburdened by the demands of actuality for the entities invoked.

To the so-called atheist, the fact that “reality can burn” means only that “one should avoid letting reality burn you”.

???

To the Christian, the fact that “reality can burn” means that sometimes accepting being burned by reality may be the price for some greater good in the future.

I think that’s no problem from an atheistic perspective, as well. I can see enduring excruciating burns as the price of running into a burning room where my child was stranded and in danger of burning to death, for example.

-Touchstone

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
You’re the one who brought up SETI - they’re looking for aliens they’ve never met, based on standards entirely human in origin. But hell, place that aside; Again, I’ve said that the design question at the level of the universe - fundamental design - differs from design questions at levels beneath it. You keep making this weird mix-up between philosophy and science, as if they’re both the same thing with the same standards.

OK. So on one hand you suppose that God exists as designed because “we know design exists” in nature. On the other hand, you are affirming the fundamental difference between design at the metaphysical level (God creating ex nihilo, for example) and the physical level (early hominids chiseling out an arrowhead).

There is no difference in the words “design” (qua design) between, “designed by humans” and “designed by God”. With the distinction that that which is designed by God is also possbly created ex nihilo as designed.

Both “things designed” are designed FOR A PURPOSE (with intention) and designed by a person or persons.

I see that as equivocation on the term ‘design’. You are telling met that Metaphysical Design (MD) exists because Physical Design(PD) exists, and have simply chosen to use the word “design” for both MD, and PD, which by your own admission are different propositions.

No. ALL design exists because PERSONS design things!

A design is a design regardless of which person designs it.

I’d say it is I who am trying to keep our terms straight here, and keeping MD distinguished from PD. PD doesn’t entail MD, yet you say MD exists because we observe PD. That is getting equivocal notions of design mixed up.

By MD do you mean “That which is created ex nihilo by God”?
By PD do you mean “That which is fashioned by man”?

Since you don’t believe in the metaphysical, why do you entertain any propositions relying on it as a basis? Wouldn’t it be better for you to simply listen to the explanation of terms and ask clarifying questions to understand them, instead of hallucinating propostitions which are self-serving on your part?

The usual so-called atheist hubris and “gotta have it my way even if I have to lie about what you said” tendencies are showing again.

 

[Touchstone]

Wonderful. I have no reason to accept any of this, and maybe the result of your trying to gain some credibility by citing your decades-long self-deception and experience in lying will illustrate why you should keep your personal credentials holstered in discussion. And I say this as someone who, frankly, now occupies a better position in the discussion since you’ve done it. You’re saying “I value honestly highly! But an experienced liar is just a human that’s been around awhile. Honesty and open-mindedness has led me to the position I now hold. I should know, I deluded myself and others for 30 years unknowingly.”

Better to not even bother with this line.

It’s not a line drawn for reasons of jockeying for position. That’s the way it is, and if that’s a detriment to my credibility, so be it. You seem to be thinking that is said as some sort of chess move, made without respect to the history behind it. It’s just a reflection of the history. As Feynman says “The easiest person to fool is myself”, and I’ve seen that to be more true than I’d like to admit. But I am willing to admit it, as that’s the history in my case.

Well, I just gave you a workable definition and understanding of supernatural. By all means, point out the flaws if you like. I wouldn’t be surprised that many people, even philosophers, didn’t give a satisfactory definition - the big names I know across the board in Christian/Catholic philosophy hardly spend any time on questions of the supernatural. They’re typically more concerned with other topics, and try their best to have as inclusive a view as possible on those particular topics.

I must have missed the working definitions. Maybe you could quote them here for me, so I can’t miss it:

“real, in terms of the supernatural, means…” → [paste definition here]

If you care, I can’t find coherent definitions of ‘exist’ or ‘true’ in terms of the supernatural either. That would be cool to see your definitions. But I won’t hold my breath. Just so I’m clear, I want to use the definitions as my criterion for evaluating a proposition – X exists supernaturally, for example. What principle do I apply to conclude that X does, or does not exist supernaturally?

In the materialist paradigm, ‘extended in space/time’ provides a remarkably robust starting principle. Does X exist materially? Well, the answer depends on whether X is extended in space/time. What is the dependency for X in terms of existing supernaturally?

It seems no one has a clue.

It’s not like Catholicism or Christianity or deism stands or falls based on its ability to provide certain, falsifiable answers to all questions. Or that materialism itself isn’t rife, utterly rife, with unsatisfactory questions, by the standards of many materialists.

No, and that hasn’t been argued here, by me or anyone else that I’ve read on this thread. My point is only that ‘supernatural’ is fundamentally meaningless, incoherent. That doesn’t mean materialism is utterly satisfying. Just that speaking of the ‘supernatural’ is indistinguishable from speaking of nothings and imaginations.

Considering what we know about simulation, it no longer does.

The plasticity afforded by virtual systems is a strong basis for understanding the foolhardiness of saying things like “universes can’t just pop out of nothing”, or “universes must pop out of nothing”. It’s by the pedagogy of virtual environments that we understand our limitations with respect to metaphysics. This is new tools for our use, tools not available to Augustine or Anselm.

Plenty. I doubt they thought about it all that deeply - I’m pleasantly surprised when any person, regardless of faith or lack of it, understands the difference between compatiblist free-will and libertarian.

Ok, then let’s not get sidetracked on retail apathy about such matters.

And I’m arguing otherwise. First, it’s worth noting that Leonard Susskind in that title out and out admits to the appearance of design in the world - quite possibly, on a grand scale (I’ve not read the book, so I don’t know where the ‘illusion’ he thinks is). Second, Susskind and Lloyd’s examples remain what they always are - potential tools for any designer. I haven’t argued, not once in this thread, that we should assume design because it’s emotionally preferable. I’ve argued purely based on the evidence that we do have, and the evidence we could ever hope to have.

PD isn’t evidence for MD. That makes the mistake of extrapolating local dynamics into the metaphysical realm. Susskind understands these limitations, but has something to bring to bear as a theoretical tool – the mathematical “landscape” that proceeds from the maths of string theory. It’s wholly theoretical as yet, and unlikely to become anything more than just theoretical for a long time. But it’s not a matter of desire or imagination, it just falls out from the solution set of the maths deployed to build coherent models in string theory.

The illusion Susskind develops at length is the contention you advance here, that PD is evidence, at ALL, for MD.

Maybe you should consider changing your position. Utter agnosticism would be an improvement over out and out atheism, in terms of both reasonability and open-mindedness. Hey, you can be a deist and still attack christians all you want.

I don’t know why you’d think my goal was to attack Christians. I’m married to a Christian. A large percentage of my family and friends are Christian. Deism just doesn’t have any warrant that I can see. Nothing against it – it’s a possibility, but so are pink unicorns, at that level. What I can see and reason about doesn’t point to any deity, absent or immanent, or the reality of anything supernatural at all, as a matter of reasoning.

It’s, sadly, a time-honored tradition - I suspect that a good number of the ‘atheists’ who answered that they believe in God was due to that nonsense about ‘Everyone is an atheist about other people’s gods’ resulting in an amusing misunderstanding.

That’s retail philosophy for ya (cf Christians and free will/determinism).

-Touchstone

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Nope. I’m saying the creative force that atheism presupposes - mindless and/or eternal and lucky ultimate origins - not only has zero evidence, but evidence can never be provided for it due to the nature of the claim.

What ‘force’ is this? You are projecting your telic mindframe on inanimate objects here, I think. Hydrogen isn’t ‘wet’ as hydrogen, and neither is oxygen, but when combined as H2O at the right temperature, “wetness” emerges.

Where did the “wetness” come from? Some supernatural force? Luck? It’s just an emergent property of the elements involved. Water simply manifests properties that are innate in the bonding energies and properties of hydrogen and oxygen. No cosmic magic needed, given hydrogen and oxygen as avaialble elements.

Do you REALLY think that we think that “wetness” requires the “cosmic magic”, apparently from God, of “divine design” to be a property of water?

The question is how was the design of the elements, with all the underlying “design” necessary to support “elements”, instituted which resulted in the “wetness” property of water?

The so-called atheist simply says, “That’s a silly question because that “design” of pattern, or more properly that sub-system of the universe, has never NOT existed and was never designed because the use of that word implies that there was a time where it didn’t exist.”

That “explanation” simply evades the question on the table, which is not the supposed “design of wetness”, which IS a ludicrous question, but the design that ALLOWS for the wetness of water.

The “FORCE” that the atheist proposes that brought about the “wetness of water” is STILL the great “Beats Me!” void which tells him, “Nothing was created but only infinitely transforms.”

When faced with questions of origins, the so-called atheist will always divert by confusing origins with operations.

“Wetness” is a result of the operation of God’s designed universe, and not dependent on God instantially willing “wetness” into existence.

How wetness is a result of God’s designed universe goes to the origin of the universe as a designed thing, where the wetness of water has a purpose.