Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[PRmerger]

Nope, the advantages of a classical education. Just as I knew the correct meaning and usage of quid pro quo.

But I will use my amateur psychology skills to hazard a guess that getting people’s ‘knickers in a twist’ is in fact your desired goal in using such florid language and the animated GIFs. Hence my pointing out the hypocrisy.

I am sorry that you were not aware that quid pro quo could mean “tit for tat”.

And I do enjoy me my GIFs, and if it makes you irritated, well, that speaks about *your *mental state.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

It’s like watching someone get really, really irate at an inanimate object.



Kind of amusing but puzzling…

Or folks who are subject to Road Rage…it’s perplexing but also interesting to watch the anger that is incited that’s so peculiarly out of proportion.

Fortunately, I did not grow up with this type of weird inability to control one’s emotions, nor do I see it in my domicile, but I do see it at the work place…and on the roads…and at airports…so, there ya go.

And I can tell you that I have never, ever, ever, been so mad that my face contorts in such a manner as posted in the pic above.

Would you be willing to share with us if this is also true for you?

Nevermind…you have no need to answer such a personal question. I only say it because, as the current topic segued, we were discussing atheism and Science of the Gaps, it does seem to make folks irritated when comparisons are made that cannot be refuted.

At any rate, I will continue to use my GIFs and words that you (peculiarly) don’t like me to use, in order to present my comments and responses to Why Couldn’t the Universe Exist Without a Cause. (Answer: it couldn’t. There is no atheist here who believe anything else in the universe has ever popped into existence <poof!>, like magic, so it’s weird and irrational and…otiose…to think that the universe could do this without a Cause.)

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see that he said that. He just said that blind faith should be reserved for theological mysteries, not that it was required for them.

And that is incorrect.

Blind faith regarding any matters theological is to be rejected.

 

[PRmerger]

I have already cited the Christian preachers and theologians who were responding to fellow christians making such arguments. Are you calling them liars?

We are saying that like you, like those who coined the term, like any thinking believer: we reject the God of the Gaps argument.

We are also saying that when you atheists appeal to the Science of the Gaps arguments it is amusing and ironic.

Now, if you don’t use the Science of the Gaps argument, then the above doesn’t apply to you.

 

[ynotzap]

As DrTaffy said, this is just another boring straw man. No one… but NO one would be idiotic enough to assert that “science” will be able to answer the problems of mathematics.

And no one is idiotic enough to assert that empirical science will be able to answer problems
of the spiritual, or do you understand what is meant by “spiritual”? Or believe in that reality?

Solmyr:

Again the “ALL”… you are just in love with creating straw man “arguments”. And you don’t understand that epistemological methods are NOT subject to some formal verification method. As long as they work, and as long as there is no better, alternative method, they are accepted PROVISIONALLY. What kind of track record can you point out in solving the real problems of the physical world?

There are many Christian organization with a track record of solving problems of the physical world. Christian missionaries have traveled the world to help people in their needs. Schools and hospitals, orphanages have been founded for such purposes, I know as they came to my help, and many others.

Solmyr:

So all of us, who say that we are OPEN to God’s manifestation are simply liars?

So all of us who say that we have experienced God’s manifestation in our lives are simplyl “liars” There are many ways in which God manifests His presence if we have eyes to see, a mind to understand.

Solmyr:

Elementary my dear Charlie. We observe the millions of Christians, who utter tens of millions of supplicatory prayers every day, and also observe that those prayers go unheeded. Thousands of children die in Africa from diseases and malnutrition, and God does not interfere. Parents pray for their children, children pray for their parents… many, many Christians pray indiscriminately for others - to no avail.

How do you know that those prayers go unheeded? Are you God. Many die because of the greed of those who have much and do not share, and God does not interfere. Did you ever ask those who have prayers answered, or are they liars? I for one and I know many more, am I a liar? Many die because of human corruption, what is human corruption? And why, does science give the answer?

Solmyr:

And before you bring up that it is OUR job to help, I would like to remind you that we DO - to the best of our abilities. Many people sacrifice their time, money and energy to help the sufferers - but it is simply not enough. Our knowledge is deficient, our resources are scarce. And God does not help. He could give some insight or intuition to the researchers who would find the cure for cancer, or for AIDS, or the method to prevent heart disease…

Agreed, many do help, and also many who are more than capable, do not, why? Our knowledge is deficient but able to advance, our resources are scarce (if we quit shooting it to the moon, and space, and supplying weapons that kill, instead of helping humanity, I would say we have plenty of resources, eg. The natural riches of Africa. But human corruption impedes that help. God did give insight to prevent aids, but why do people continue to spread it? Does science as we know it have the answers? As long as science and people remain “earth bound” and do not transcend to the reality of the “spiritual” things will not only remain the same, but will regress.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, the advantages of a classical education.

Ah. A classical education is required to read my posts?

That seems to be what you’re saying. I use “otiose” and “inutile” and because of “the advantages of a classical education”, you can understand my posts.

Although I think this is inadvertent, it’s a compliment to my writing abilities, so I thank you kindly, sir.

“The universe couldn’t exist without a cause” should have been part of this classical education.

Ex nihilo nihil fit

Translation:
From nothing, nothing comes.

Translation:
You can’t get a universe without something else causing it.

Unless the universe always existed.

But one has to be a science-denier to believe that.

 

[Solmyr]

I suppose the presumption here is that human beings have more to be gained by God miraculously feeding millions with manna from heaven than by God morally moving human hearts to endeavor to feed and house millions by human free agency.

Nope, that is NOT the presumption. It is the FACT that there are no miraculous healings for the thousands of children who die every day in Africa due to diseases - no matter how hard and how frequently people pray for them. We, humans try to help as much as we can, but our abilities are insufficient. The catholic church shares our concern and makes veritable contributions to helping out those in need. So even the catholic church agrees that helping the sick and feeding the hungry is a good course of action.

If only God would intervene in those cases when human actions were tried and failed, then you MIGHT have a point. But, of course there is no sign of that. People get trapped in a mine, others work day and night to rescue them. God could create a well-designed small Earth movement to open a crevasse to the trapped people and thus facilitate the rescue. Of course it never happens.

This all depends upon what it means to be human in the first place. Clearly, if the end goal is merely keeping as many physical organisms alive for as long as possible with no regard for the nature of what it is that is being kept alive, you may have a point.

To keep people alive is the FIRST requirement. Without having people alive no other plan can work.

However, if God has a vested interest in forming that nature with regard to its eternal character and potential, then your calculus regarding what God ought to do or not do may be wildly off the mark.

Since you have exactly the same amount of information about God’s “vested interest” as I do… namely NOTHING, you are not in the position to argue about that “vested interest”. I simply argue about FACTS. And when the FACTS indicate that God does not care, then I simply draw the conclusion based upon those facts… no “perhaps” for me.

Well, “perhaps” is certainly less wordy and ostentatious than your…

Which, essentially, means the same as “perhaps,” but with the rather unwieldy and unnecessary addition or, more precisely, the bloat of several hundred characters.

Nonsense. The scientific approach is simple. We try to make predictions based upon our hypotheses, and as long as the predictions are verified by reality, we keep the hypotheses. All you could offer was: “perhaps there would be many more deaths and more suffering, if the believers would not pray”. That is your “hypothesis”. You cannot offer any evidence for it.

And to “write off” the deaths and sufferings of those untold thousands of children in Africa as being used as tools to “nudge” us to be more helpful is a very cruel and un-catholic “non-argument”.

Yes, I will have to repeat that you are very predictable. You can only offer excuses, cop-outs, instead of reasoned responses. I could write all your “objections” for you, if only I wanted to do it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And I do enjoy me my GIFs, and if it makes you irritated, well, that speaks about *your *mental state.

On that note, for anyone that is using the Chrome browser and doesn’t want GIFs to animate for one reason or another Google Accessibility does have a Chrome extension available named “Animation Policy” that might be of interest. It only has three settings:

• Allow all Animated Images
• Allow Animated Images, but only once [no looping]
• Disable All Image Animations

There is also a third party extension that will block all GIFs from animating until you click on them.

Some other browsers have settings to prevent the automatic animation of media.

 

[Solmyr]

And no one is idiotic enough to assert that empirical science will be able to answer problems of the spiritual, or do you understand what is meant by “spiritual”? Or believe in that reality?

No, I don’t believe in this “spiritual” realm. The word “spirit” have many meanings. You need to specify which meaning you refer to. And what are those “problems of the spiritual”?

There are many Christian organization with a track record of solving problems of the physical world. Christian missionaries have traveled the world to help people in their needs. Schools and hospitals, orphanages have been founded for such purposes, I know as they came to my help, and many others.

No one denies it. Credit must be given where credit is due. Oh, and they all use physical methods. No prayer session ever healed the sick, only doctors do that. No prayer session ever fed the hungry, only the cooks can do that.

So all of us who say that we have experienced God’s manifestation in our lives are simplyl “liars” There are many ways in which God manifests His presence if we have eyes to see, a mind to understand.

No, I did not say that. Leave these unfounded accusations to others. There are quite a few here who thrive on them. All I say that I have never experienced ANYTHING that I could interpret as a manifestation of God. Also don’t forget that no one is compelled to accept those so-called private revelations. If you could substantiate them, that would be different.

The rest I already answered.

 

[PRmerger]

I think PR was presenting a parody of your bald-faced claim that “we don’t understand, therefore God” is or has been used as an argument by respectable theists.

Yes, you are correct.

 

[PRmerger]

On that note, for anyone that is using the Chrome browser and doesn’t want GIFs to animate for one reason or another Google Accessibility does have a Chrome extension available named “Animation Policy” that might be of interest. It only has three settings:

• Allow all Animated Images
• Allow Animated Images, but only once [no looping]
• Disable All Image Animations

There is also a third party extension that will block all GIFs from animating until you click on them.

Some other browsers have settings to prevent the automatic animation of media.

What kind of person doesn’t like seeing GIFs?

 

[Solmyr]

On that note, for anyone that is using the Chrome browser and doesn’t want GIFs to animate for one reason or another Google Accessibility does have a Chrome extension available named “Animation Policy” that might be of interest. It only has three settings:

• Allow all Animated Images
• Allow Animated Images, but only once [no looping]
• Disable All Image Animations

There is also a third party extension that will block all GIFs from animating until you click on them.

Some other browsers have settings to prevent the automatic animation of media.

Thank you for the idea! No more of those idiotic GIF’s for me…

 

[Solmyr]

Ye of little faith! Yes, the problem of suffering and of evil in the world is a rather hard nut to crack. Rather than trying to explain it or explain it away, depending on your point of view, let me simply state that the faithful are such DESPITE all this pain and suffering. In Judaism, we do not share in our suffering with Jesus and we do not think of our suffering as a means to lessen the time that souls spend in Purgatory. Nor is suffering considered a test from G-d of our faith in Him, as some believe. No, all suffering is bad and we are meant to alleviate it in all its forms. But, at the same time, Jews are taught to thank G-d for EVERYTHING in life, including the suffering. This may sound like a contradiction but there it is. We do our share in “repairing the holes” of the universe that G-d intentionally created imperfect and G-d does His. This is the partnership of faith.

Indeed I am of “little faith”. The only and only apologetic book I ever found worth reading was created by Rabbi Harry Kushner: “When bad things happen to good people”. He was the only one who did not try to explain away the problem. He has my utmost respect.

 

[Solmyr]

What kind of person doesn’t like seeing GIFs?

Those who are interested in serious discussions, where actual arguments are being offered and not juvenile pictures, which have ZERO connection to the topic at hand.

 

[PRmerger]

However, since my argument was just that atheists do not commonly make the equivalent “we don’t understand, therefore Science” argument, the point is moot.

Here’s one atheist who does:

But, as a scientist, you are aware that our knowledge is finite, so “maybe” there are ways and means to substantiate the paranormal phenomena. We cannot a-priori exclude such a possibility.

And another one:

But now we live in the 21st century. While we by no means have all the answers, many of the things once often ascribed to demons have far more tangible explanations. Even on things that we can’t fully explain we know that the chance of a mundane explanation is great.

And another one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13056338&postcount=450

And another one:

People used to worship the sun as a god out of ignorance. They used to think he visited them each day to bestow his blessing on them and their crops, sustaining them.

Then humans learned about the solar system and how it works. Poof no more sun god. Turns out there was never a sun god, people just didnt know what the sun was.

As knowledge increases, the supernatural events seem to occur less and less. Coincidence?

And another one:

There is much we still don’t know and the door is open (even to me) of the universe’s origins. Stephen Hawking and other theoretical physicists will likely never fully explain how it all came together, but so far they have given the world far more demonstrable understanding of the universe’s beginnings than any preacher.

And another one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13191987&postcount=827

And another one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13356279#post13356279

And another one:

I already did, and you agreed that there is no PHILOSOPHICAL problem here. There is a physical problem, of course, which we cannot prevent - as of now.

And another one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13530567&postcount=667

All of the above say the same thing: we don’t know today (or we didn’t know yesterday), but Science will figure it out, man!

 

[PRmerger]

In the spirit of good will, I will try to limit the GIFs I post.

 

[Solmyr]

Here’s one atheist who does:
And another one:
And another one:
And another one:
And another one:
And another one:
And another one:
And another one:
And another one:

All of the above say the same thing: we don’t know today (or we didn’t know yesterday), but Science will figure it out, man!

If only you had paid attention, you would have seen that none of them asserts that all those problems WILL be solved, only that they MIGHT be solved. It is the proper scientific approach that one should not a-priori exclude the possibility of a solution.

Is this something that is new for you?

 

[PRmerger]

The scientific establishment clearly does not agree that the existence of God is proven.

I assert that there is no such thing as 'the scientific establishment". There are simply scientists–Believing Scientists (see the lists I provided) and a few Nonbelieving Scientists. And organizations composed of scientists.

And, clearly, there are more Believing Scientists than there are Nonbelieving Scientists.

(If you’re going to count how many Believing Scientists there are to try to prove me wrong, Taffy, then don’t forget to count from the very beginning, ok? That means you have to include all the priests, monks, rabbis, university professors (all teaching at Catholic institutions since, of course, it was the Catholic Church which started this formalized system of education, a paean by the Church to science and the pursuit of knowledge using our God-given intellect) from the beginning of religion to today’s current Believing Scientists).

So, yeah, (this is fun to say in this context, in dialogue with you): I am an, er, atheist regarding the existence of this alleged “scientific establishment”

I did find this amusing little description of the “scientific establishment” though:
That’s what it is… an immaterial concept that lacks self-awareness floating around in our collective and ever-shifting mindscape.
shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/3616175#3616175

I guess I could go with that.

If there were proof of its existence.

 

[ynotzap]

No, I don’t believe in this “spiritual” realm. The word “spirit” have many meanings. You need to specify which meaning you refer to. And what are those “problems of the spiritual”?

By spiritual I mean non-material reality such as knowledge, soul, thought, ideas, order, will, rational intelligence, logic, meanings, and spiritual beings (not physical), truth and God. Morality is one great problem, ignorance is another, weakness of will is another, sensuality is another, pride , hatred, envy, jealousy and evil in general are all spiritual realities. These are the real causes of humanitys problems.

Solmyr:

No one denies it. Credit must be given where credit is due. Oh, and they all use physical methods. No prayer session ever healed the sick, only doctors do that. No prayer session ever fed the hungry, only the cooks can do that.

It was the spiritual motivation that caused people to feed the hungry, and I know that prayer does heal the sick. Many can testify to this truth. Not all that pray for a healing get healed for God’s own reasons, but they do receive spiritual strength to endure. We don’t command God to do our bidding, but submit to His Holy Will. He suffered Himself for us, and like Him we may suffer for others. I don’t expect you to accept, or believe this, it is not natural but supernatural. You can not comprehend this faith if you do not have it.

Solmyr:

No, I did not say that. Leave these unfounded accusations to others. There are quite a few here who thrive on them. All I say that I have never experienced ANYTHING that I could interpret as a manifestation of God. Also don’t forget that no one is compelled to accept those so-called private revelations. If you could substantiate them, that would be different.

The rest I already answered.

No one is compelled to accept private revelations, but that doesn’t make them untrue, scepticism, and non-belief are spiritual realities. There are plenty documented miracles in the archives of the Roman Catholic Church. Scientists had to admit they have no answer. I suggest you research for yourself. Many have not experienced supernatural manifestations, but many have experience natural manifestations of a superior power, even primitive cultures have this experience. The universe itself is such a manifestation. You are speaking for yourself

 

[Solmyr]

By spiritual I mean non-material reality such as knowledge, soul, thought, ideas, order, will, rational intelligence, logic, meanings, and spiritual beings (not physical), truth and God. Morality is one great problem, ignorance is another, weakness of will is another, sensuality is another, pride , hatred, envy, jealousy and evil in general are all spiritual realities. These are the real causes of the humanities problems.

That is a hodgepodge of unrelated things. Not helpful at all. The word “existence” has two meanings. Physical existence and conceptual existence. Concepts have no ontological existence. You claim “soul” and “God”, both of which are supposed to have ontological existence, but you cannot present any evidence for them. Moreover there is no coherent definition of a “soul”.

Unfortunately the word “reality” as you use it is also meaningless for me. Sorry.

You are speaking for yourself

I always speak for myself. It just so happens that I am not alone, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What kind of person doesn’t like seeing GIFs?

Many things have their place when selectively applied. When not applied selectively results may vary. Remember MySpace.com (before they laid off half their staff and decided to concentrate on music)? If you don’t that may be a good thing.

I’d bet if the GIF served to communicate something that isn’t communicated as well with static images the reaction may be different. Ex: If I were engaged in a discussion of internal combusion 2 cycle engines then something like the following would probably serve to communicate without an emotional reaction.
http://cdn.makeuseof.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/mud_pump_working.gif?26523c

http://33.media.tumblr.com/33bce90af0d229d75db390e0d5c17930/tumblr_inline_ns88b85WPe1r79k32_500.gif

I’m guessing that’s animated. Can’t tell from my end.

That seems to be what you’re saying. I use “otiose” and “inutile” and because of “the advantages of a classical education”, you can understand my posts.

Although I think this is inadvertent, it’s a compliment to my writing abilities, so I thank you kindly, sir.

I’m of 2 minds on this. On one hand it’s convenient to be able to use one’s vocabulary to express ones self with economy of words. Isn’t it nice to be able to select the one word that expresses one’s sentiments ever so well? And when that word is received in the manner as intended successful communication has been achieved!

On the other hand there are times when I want to be able to reach a broader audience. To do this I have to avoid some words. I’m trying to use a paragraph from “To The Point” as a guide.

Then again I can’t know what words are in the vocabulary of another.
To the Point:

In a letter to a twelve-year old boy Mark Twain wrote “I notice you use plain simple language, short word, and breif sentences. That is the way to write English – it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don’t let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in.”

Alas, with most of us, as we grow older, fluff and flowers and verbosity do creep in. Writing today often has too much fat, too little muscie - bulk withoug strength. <uch of what we read these days ranges from slightly flabby to grossly obese. As children we wrote sentences like “See Dick run.” As adults we are more likely to write, “It is imparitive that we assiduously observe Richard as he traverses the terrain at an accelerated rate of speed.” We gain girth and loose mirth - and so does our prose.

Whether one goes for unfettered expression or manacled expression in favour of a broader audience is largely a value judgement (I think). Heck, sometimes I think it’s good to help others expand the envelope of their vocabulary by speaknig outside of their vocabulary boundaries. There are merits and criticisms with both strategies. I admit to jumping between both types of expressions.

Pardon my mistakes. This was sent from a big ole keyboard and any mistakes are totally on me.