/lit/ - Literature

>>22888764
>Is believing in God is reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe?
yes

How about simply saying you dont know how the universe came into existence.

>>22888779
i know

>>22888764
The "a nihilo nihil fit" argument is as strong as it is old. It gets problematic only if you arrive much further downstream from its conclusions. The truth is, we can not know anything in a meaningful way, so belief in science and religion is equally unjustified. But you should choose religion (over science in this regard) anyway for existentialist and humanist reasons in a leap of faith à la Kierkegaard and Jacobi.
If you want, I can elaborate and provide argumentation.

>>22888764
1The universe don't need an act of creation, we use this axiom of "everything needs a creator" because we need the concept of causation to understand reality, but that doesn't mean realitynitself need causation, this becomes evident when we realise there's an inherent paradox on the concept of creatio, if we say that god exist because everything needs a creator, then we can ask who created god, and then create an infinute tegress since that creator woyld also need someone to create him, but if we say that god doesn't need a creator, then we're reallying in a quality of "something existing without a creator" which then refutes the axiom "everything needs a creator" making the whole argument of a creator fallacious, i can just think tjat tje world itself doesn't need a creator and cut the middle man
2 even if we follow this logic that, there must be a creator, that arhument don't lead me to the christian god, the indian brahman could be the creator, some greek god like gea or kaos could be the creator, etc

>>22888764
>The universe can't come from nothing,
How do you know that?

>it is most reasonable to assume that a God, who is omnipotent and therefore isn't bound by concepts such as time, created the universe.

Why does it make sense that God came from nothing, but not that the universe came from nothing?

>>22888764
Sir, this is a literature forum

>>22888839
>The universe don't need an act of creation
it do, do you really think that you are created from nothing?

>>22888839
>who created god
That's the point: God is nothing. It is not a being, so there is nothing to cause.
>don't lead me to the christian god
I agree, but I believe that every religion tends to paint the same picture in the case of metaphysics.

>>22888854
What created God?
God doesn't need to be created
Then why does the universe?
Angry ranting

>>22888870
>What created God
we don't know, but God exists

>>22888874
But by your logic we know that God had a creator.

>>22888879
what if god had a creator, Who created the god who created god

>>22888892
So you see that assuming everything needs a creator leads to infinite regress

Search up the Fine Tuning Argument.

>>22888854
The act of creation is not needed nor self evident and the idea of a creator laads to an infinite regress

>>22888839
All you've done is identified the universe itself with the Uncaused Cause. You need a Uncaused Cause in either case, lest you end up with an infinite regress, and if the universe is without cause, you've simply arrived at pantheism. Now, there are issues with pantheism, but congratulations, at least you are now a theist.
>2 even if we follow this logic that, there must be a creator, that arhument don't lead me to the christian god, the indian brahman could be the creator, some greek god like gea or kaos could be the creator, etc
There can only be one Uncaused Cause. It is impossible to imagine, for instance, two such entities because they would have no differentiating qualities and would therefore be one and the same. When religions speak of the same metaphysical ground of reality we call God, they are refering to the same thing. They have different ideas about how the Divine has interacted with the world, how exactly He is, and so on, but they are not refering to different entities.

I love molesting female children under 12 y/o

>>22888909
>Search up the Fine Tuning Argument.
People really believe anything the scientific establishment dishes out, if it somewhat helps them siphon some credibility from the institutions. Faith will never return societally if it can not learn to stand on its own two feet again.

>>22889276
Not at all, since your argument takes for granted that causation exist as a thing on itself, which you can't prove, is not self evident that an uncaused cause is needed ad any attempt to prove it will only lead to a subjective form of causation, a causation for a subject not causation itself

>>22889276
Saying that the universe is self sufficient is not pantheism, atheist believe that too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKvv83qFhQ

>>22888764
The Biblical worldview makes better sense of the world than the materialist worldviews that are taught in schools and promoted in mass media.

The loudest complaints I see are from people who read something God did, then they try to remove God from the equation and try to explain it through materialistic or naturalistic processes, which leaves them with something impossible: a miracle with no miracle-maker. But materialism/naturalism has countless miracles with no miracle-maker and people just don't realize it apparently. They've been conned into thinking "more time" or "just 2 more weeks" will make miracles happen on their own. It's all just a way to explain the big questions of life and existence without a Creator to whom we'll all be held accountable. It's always a moral issue why people won't submit to God.

>and to me it doesn't really seem like a contradiction since one could argue that God made the Big bang happen.
God said he did it differently. I'd rather side with God's Word than man's word, but I don't have this faith in God's Word from simply reading the Bible. I have this faith from considering God's promises and seeking after God as Scripture says to do.

>>22888792
>The truth is, we can not know anything in a meaningful way
That's only part of your worldview, not mine.

>>22888844
>>The universe can't come from nothing,
>How do you know that?
Laws of the universe, like conservation of matter and energy. It's a miracle without a miracle-maker, and a logical contradiction if you profess a materialistic or naturalistic worldview.

>>22888860
People don't hate things that aren't real. Atheists don't go around hating Santa or the Easter Bunny, but they hate God because they love their sin.

>>22888870
My God wasn't created, you create a false god to attack God Almighty.
>Then why does the universe?
Because if you extend the known laws of the universe into an infinite past you would realize there would be no life right now, it's scientifically impossible. An uncreated universe would have an infinite timeline and an infinite past. God however created the universe and made the laws governing the universe, so God isn't bound by his creation, God's self-existence doesn't logically transfer to the universe just because you want to go on sinning and refusing to submit to God. You can play word games all you want, but it's always a moral issue why you won't submit to God.

>>22889481
Your post just reeks of "please stop spreading that argument" in the most desperate of terms. Sorry that science is finally catching up to Scripture, even if mainstream "science" will never submit to God for the same reasons you won't.

You know George Washington died after blood letting? Had he paid more attention to Scripture, he'd know the life of the flesh was in the blood. Or how about washing hands under running water? It took doctors a bunch of dead new mothers to learn that, when before they had dipped their hands in a bowl of dirty still water.

>>22888764

>>22888764
It doesnt matter. The bible says all sorts of retarded shit that has been empirically refuted. Even if there was a creater, all of contemporary religion can be dismissed.

>>22888764
>Is believing in God is reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe?

Of course not. It just delegates the question to what created God. Further, there is no proof really that any God even exists. Even if it were a sufficient explanation (which it isn't) you'd still need direct proof besides "universe exists".

The thing is if you observe things in the universe , then from there you can only inference the existence of things within that universe which are bound by its logic, not things outside it. You might just as well say that we are living in a simulation that is run by computers to harvest energy from our real bodies and it would make just as much sense as "God did it".

>"The universe can't come from nothing

What gave him the idea that the Universe came from nothing? There has always been something since time itself begins with the universe. Since there is no "time before universe" we can conclude that there has always been something despite the universe having a finite age.

>God, who is omnipotent and therefore isn't bound by concepts such as time, created the universe."

Omnipotence is a meaningless contradictory concept. Giving any meaning to omnipotence is like adding a number to infinity. It doesn't work because infinity doesn't work as a number (even though zero does) precisely because it doesn't have any meaningful value. What really exists are just ever increasing bigger finite numbers that just never end.

Here's a simple example, can an omnipotent entity create a rock it cannot lift? If it can then its not omnipotent, since it cannot create the rock. If it cannot create such a thing for above reasons then it is still not omnipotent due to that inability.

So such meaningless concepts cannot be placeholders for why rules do not apply to God.

>>22888764
The infinite regress argument itself is an infinite regress, retard. You could have just googled this shit faggot.

>>22888764
Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

>>22888839
The big bang is a creation story

>>22888764
I don’t see why not. The universe is too unfathomable for us to understand, god is a way to fill in the gaps. It’s staggering how little we know and most people just go on through life not really thinking about it, it’s kinda messed up though.

>>22892625
All ideologies say things that are false like men and women are equals, or all races are equals, or not sharing money with poor people is bad, nothing of this is scientifically testable. You will believe in something and pretend others beliefs make no sense why your own are justified. Except the contradictions of some beliefs are greater than others (you are an animated golem that exists just because, now believe in her.)

>>22892730
>men and women are equals
No they are not, they function at a different level

> or not sharing money with poor people is bad

sharing money with the poor is good

>>22888764
>Is believing in God is reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe?

The best explanation for believing is that it eliminates the need to find the real answers to the questions of the universe. By believing that God, by using metaphor and magic, is responsible for all things, every mystery becomes clear.

We know the answers to this type of questions. We understand how it all works and by who.

>>22888764
No. Nobody knows how it happened. It's just the God of the Gaps argument.

The creation of the universe violates causality. But causality itself is a property of the universe. There is no reason to assume whatever created the universe is bound by the laws of the universe.
Because whatever created the universe is not bound by the laws of the universe, we cannot make any assumptions about it. All our assumptions would be based on how objects behave under the laws of the universe.

Even if we assumed that the thing that created the universe is sentient and we named that thing "God", then there would be no reason to assume that thing has any resemblance to the religious entity called "God" that you and other religious people think of, a personal god that cares about your affairs and interferes with the natural order of the universe.

>>22888792
>The truth is, we can not know anything in a meaningful way, so belief in science and religion is equally unjustified.
Why do you claim to know that nothing can actually be known with certainty then? Are you claiming to have knowledge about the fact that there is no knowledge?

In fact, why do you communicate at all if you really believe there is no knowledge? Do you think there is a point to communication? (much less, why make truth claims with your communication?)

>>22888839
>there's an inherent paradox on the concept of creatio, if we say that god exist because everything needs a creator, then we can ask who created god, and then create an infinute tegress
You mean infinite regress? God is uncreated, whereas the natural universe and everything in it is created, and therefore caused. The regress stops at God because God does not have or need a cause. If you're talking about something that has a cause of some kind, you're talking about something that was caused by God rather than being God Himself. There's no paradox in saying that God is uncaused and has no cause.

>which then refutes the axiom "everything needs a creator" making the whole argument of a creator fallacious
No, not really. The law of excluded middle tells us that everything is either caused or uncaused and therefore, everything that is created (i.e. not uncaused in terms of efficient causes) needs to have a Creator.

>>22893242
>God is uncreated, whereas the natural universe and everything in it is created, and therefore caused.
So just say the universe is uncreated and therefore needs no cause. If you leave a way out from causality open for God there is nothing to stop the universe from using the same loophole.

>>22893262
>So just say the universe is uncreated
The universe follows laws that are imposed on it, so therefore it is caused by those physical laws rather than being the uncaused cause

>>22893266
So just say the physical laws are uncreated then. No need to add a superfluous God

>>22893270
Physical laws aren't a primary substance.

>>22893272
>primary substance
Aristotelian nonsense. His Physics has been disproven for hundreds of years.

>>22893280
No, it's very easy. Those physical laws are something that originates with God. The physical laws are our abstraction of our understanding of how God imposes laws on the universe. The existence of the laws points to and originates in the mind of God which is responsible for this ordered universe.

>>22893242
Why can't the universe have been created by a mindless process that puffed into existence "uncaused", created the universe and then puffed back out of existence again once the deed was done?

Why add all the baggage of a sentient all-powerful deity that likes talking to ancient jews on mountains via burning foliage?

>>22893287
>Those physical laws are something that originates with God.
Wild ass assumption. Just say that physical laws exist without a cause. If God can why can't they?
>The existence of the laws points to and originates in the mind of God which is responsible for this ordered universe.
No the existence of physical laws don't point to God. Are you really getting confused because we call them laws? Is this a laws need a lawgiver argument? Physical laws are an observed pattern of behavior backed by experiment that allows us to reliably make predictions of future behavior. Calling them laws is metaphorical and failing to see that is pathetic.

>>22893289
>Why can't the universe have been created by a mindless process
If it is a process then it follows some kind of laws or rules that are imposed on it, which then points to an ordering mind behind it causatively. Any mindless process you can name is "caused" rather than "uncaused" and it requires a cause, therefore pointing back to the uncaused Creator rather than being any kind of Creator itself. That's my understanding.

>>22893295
>If God can why can't they?
The laws are merely our abstraction of how God (a primary substance) imposes Himself on the universe. Sort of like magnetic fields, they are an abstract concept that allows us to understand how the universe works, rather than being a primary substance themselves.

>>22893296
A mind is just a more complex process than a mindless process. Water running down a hill is an example of a mindless process.
You are assuming that process involved a sentient mind. Why?
Either way we are assuming it was uncaused.

>>22893300
>The laws are merely our abstraction of how God (a primary substance) imposes Himself on the universe.
Again another wild ass assumption. What stops us from just saying physical laws are uncaused?

And about your primary substance schtick. I assume you're talking about about it in an Aristotelian sense along with all the metaphysical rules associated with it. That would make God as a primary substance subject to rules and by your own argument caused by something else.
>If it is a process then it follows some kind of laws or rules that are imposed on it, which then points to an ordering mind behind it causatively.

>>22893304
>A mind is just a more complex process than a mindless process.
If the process has no mind, then its specific features that it possesses have to be coming from outside of itself rather than within itself (as in a will of its own). The specific features therefore are part of the cause of the process, whatever that process is, rather than coming from within it (since it is mindless).

>>22893308
>What stops us from just saying physical laws are uncaused?
Those are our abstract understanding of how the universe works. Magnetic field lines don't exist in reality. They are merely our abstraction. But they help us understand how physical objects interact according to some objectively existing and externally imposed order. Therefore, it is useful to speak of these laws while being careful to avoiding a category error of asserting that they are a standalone existence when they really aren't, just as magnetic field lines don't actually exist.

>That would make God as a primary substance subject to rules
I would say God has attributes or properties. Not that God is subject to rules, since that statement would imply something external is being imposed on God, but God is uncaused.

>ctrt+f laws
>9 results
Seems like great thread to ask. Where does the notion that there are laws to the universe come from? As far as I know, we have modeled constants and constraints that appear to be reliable based on our experiments. Saying that they're laws is misleading, as if we know their finality and binding for sure.

>>22893333
It's just our best model for understanding the universe. In physics, you can look up the "standard model," in addition to many theories that currently exist "outside of" that model for regimes where the standard model breaks down.

>>22893325
>Therefore, it is useful to speak of these laws while being careful to avoiding a category error of asserting that they are a standalone existence when they really aren'.
You're the one that brought up physical laws to begin with. You said the universe was cause by them here >>22893266
>it is caused by those physical laws
Since now you're claiming they aren't actually real lets return to my original argument and assume the universe is uncaused.
>Not that God is subject to rules, since that statement would imply something external is being imposed on God, but God is uncaused.
But by your own argument since he is subject to the rules associated with primary substances he has to be caused by something else. Are you now saying God isn't a primary substance?

>>22893325
>The specific features therefore are part of the cause of the process
But it is uncaused. The whole premise is that it violates the law of causality.
It just popped into existence out of nowhere or maybe always existed.

Why would a more complex process like a mind have any explanatory advantage over a mindless uncaused process just because it could comprehend itself? Nothing is gained by this more complex assumption. Either way, both simple and complex process violate causality equally.

>>22892724
No, the big bang explain how the universe was created not how reality itself was created, also the word creation here is not really applicable, since the big bang didn't "create" the universe as a creator but let the already existing universe expand

>>22893337
>You're the one that brought up physical laws to begin with.
Yes, but I didn't commit a category error with them. Big difference.
>But by your own argument since he is subject to the rules associated with primary substances
I just said the opposite. You are now attributing the opposite of what I said to me. I clearly said "Not that God is subject to rules" in the above post, anon.

>But it is uncaused.
A mindless process has specific features. Since the process here is mindless, these features are being caused from somewhere else, not coming from itself - external to itself. This points to the regress of external causes back to the uncaused cause. No mindless process can be uncaused, since such a process has specific properties that come from outside of itself.

>Why would a more complex process like a mind have any explanatory advantage over a mindless uncaused process just because it could comprehend itself?
Because something that is mindless cannot even be uncaused, as the properties of such a process are coming from outside of itself rather than being part of its own will.

>>22893359
>Yes, but I didn't commit a category error with them. Big difference.
You claim that something that doesn't really exist in your own words created the universe.
>I just said the opposite. You are now attributing the opposite of what I said to me. I clearly said "Not that God is subject to rules" in the above post, anon.
You said that because you're trying to avoid being impaled on your own argument. You called God a primary substance. Do primary substance have rules imposed on them or not? Of course they do. You also claimed that anything with rules imposed on it must have been caused by something else. So God as a primary substance has rules imposed on him and must have been caused by something else. The two assumptions in that statement are your own assumptions.

>>22893242
The uncaused cause is fallacious because it contradicts the chain of causation itself, causation works because each cause is justified as the effect of another cause, creating a chain of self sufficiency, by adding something different, a cause that is not also an effect you're destroing the logical consistency of the chain, now even more uncaused causes can be added creating a chaotic model of new universes and causes, also the uncaused cause can't explain how this uncaused aspect came to be in the chain, since the chain only works with cause and effect you'll need first a and "effect caused by an uncaused cause" as a link in the chain, and then a "cause caused by the effect of an uncaused cause" and so o and so on creating an infinite number of particular links never avtually linking it with the links of "cause and effect" you end up in an ifinite regress again
Also as said before you're taking for granted that causation exist as a thing on itslef and nit as a relative category, something you just can't prove

>>22893287
That's circular reasoning, you're using god to justify the existence of god

>>22893295
The teleological argument targeted at physics is a strong argument for the case that the physical laws were designed and not just some randomized “first cause”

>>22893388
>The teleological argument targeted at physics is a strong argument
No it's fucking not. Teleology doesn't exist. It's goofy as hell. Any purpose you see in nature is purely subjective. Reminder that one of Aristotle's examples of teleology was a rock falling to the ground because it's "purpose" was to be on the ground.

>>22893367
>Do primary substance have rules imposed on them or not?
The concept of a primary substance, as we speak of it, is an abstraction itself. You shouldn't confuse an abstraction with an actual object, because that's a category error. That's not to say that we should discard abstractions altogether, because I'm not saying that. It's just to say that we should avoid making category errors if we want to ascertain the truth in a good faith and intellectually honest discussion.

>Do primary substance have rules imposed on them or not? Of course they do.
No, but "the abstract concept of a primary substance" as we have defined it is an abstract concept, and the abstract concept of primary substances is not a primary substance itself, although objectively existing primary substances can be predicated with the term "primary substance". So you are committing another category error by assuming that the abstract concept of primary substance (rather than some actual primary substance) is itself an actual primary substance. Actual primary substances do not necessarily have to have rules imposed on them, even though the abstract concept of "primary substance" (that is, without specifying any particular thing, but just talking about the concept of primary substances in general) itself is itself just an abstraction used in philosophical discussions and not a primary substance in its own right, despite actual primary substances being predicated in our language as examples of such.

>So God as a primary substance has rules imposed on him and must have been caused by something else.
I disagree. God is an actually existing entity, while the concept of a "primary substance" is an abstraction and not a primary substance in its own right, so to equivocate between these two things is a category error. I'm sorry if you don't understand how the two things are fundamentally different and you can't just equivocate between the two logically.

>>22893374
>The uncaused cause is fallacious because it contradicts the chain of causation itself
This was answered earlier. See the second part of >>22893242 .
>now even more uncaused causes can be added
Don't assume something that isn't necessary.

>you'll need first a and "effect caused by an uncaused cause" as a link in the chain, and then a "cause caused by the effect of an uncaused cause" and so o and so on creating an infinite number of particular links
Calculus pro Zeno's paradox, IMO.
>Also as said before you're taking for granted that causation exist
This is based on the premise that the world or universe is ordered.

>>22893398
>Probability isn’t real. Why? Because I fucking said so ok.
Embarrassing

>>22893411
So much dancing around to pull yourself out of a pit you dug
>Actual primary substances do not necessarily have to have rules imposed on them
So call physical laws a primary substance then. You can't say they violate the rules associated with being a primary substance since you don't think primary substances necessarily have to follow the rules.
>God is an actually existing entity, while the concept of a "primary substance" is an abstraction and not a primary substance in its own right, so to equivocate between these two things is a category error.
This is gibberish. Do you think God is a primary substance or not? If he is he caused by something else from here >>22893367 and if he is not a primary substance then he can't have created the universe in your own words from here >>22893272. He has to be one or the other from the law of excluded middle which you reference here >>22893242

>>22893420
What does probability have to do with teleology? Teleology is laughable

>>22893434
The probability that all the physical constants are at the exact values to allow for the possibility of life, elements more than just hydrogen, a universe that lives longer than a hundred million years, etc. is so astronomically low that the best answer is some kind of design. How can the physical laws be some uncreated thing? Your arguments don’t make any sense, just because you don’t like something it’s “goofy as hell”. Bitch you’re goofy as hell, therefore nothing you say has any validity

>>22893431
>You can't say they violate the rules associated with being a primary substance since you don't think primary substances necessarily have to follow the rules.
If they don't qualify as standalone entities that actually exist, then they are not what I would call primary substances. Standalone entity is essentially a synonym for what I'm talking about here. You can say the laws of the natural universe exist, and they point to God's existence, but they can't be the uncaused cause themselves because they are just an abstraction. In reality, God imposes these things that we call laws upon the universe, and the existence of the laws are inherently the effects of God's actions which act as impositions on the universe causing it to obey certain observable laws. As it says in Psalm 119:91, "They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants."

I might still refer to different abstractions in this discussion, just as many abstractions are being employed all the time in regular speech.

>Do you think God is a primary substance or not?
Of course.
>If he is he caused by something else from here >>22893367
False. Because there are not necessarily rules imposed on actual primary substances.

Again, actual primary substances, such as God or any existing entity, are not to be confused with the abstract concept of primary substances. The abstract concept is an abstraction that has been defined in a specific way to help conceptualize the universe. Thus, rules apply to the idea that we have defined of what is or isn't a primary substance. That is true. However, rules are NOT necessarily imposed on actual primary substances. This is true, even if the concept of such has been defined by us according to a specific way. Because that's just talking about our abstraction, not about God Himself. We need to keep God separate from the concept that we define and predicate of God. If there are rules that apply to the general concept of primary substances, that does not mean that there is any kind of rule being applied to God Himself. We can however say that God meets our definition of a "primary substance" as we have defined it; IOW, a standalone existence.

>>22893471
Notice that you don't mention teleology once there in your post. I'll take that as an admission that teleology is retard tier. As for the fine-tuning argument which you have shifted to, what makes life so special? And even if we take life as special how do you know life couldn't exist with different physical constants? Life as we know it couldn't exist but there is not a field of multiverse biology that predicts what life could be in other universes with different physical constants. As far as we know there could be creatures larger than galaxies if the gravitational constant was different for example

>>22893482
>If they don't QUALIFY AS STANDALONE ENTITIES THAT ACTUALLY EXIST(a rule that determines if something is a primary substance), then they are not what I would call primary substances
So there are rules that apply to something that is a primary substance. And you said God is a primary substance. So there are rules that apply to him. Therefore by your own argument God must have been caused by something else.
>Because there are not necessarily rules imposed on actual primary substances.
Then physical laws can be primary substances since there are no rules to violate in determining whether something is a primary substance.

>>22893519
>So there are rules that apply to something that is a primary substance.
No. There are rules that apply to the definition of what a "primary substance" is. As was said before, actual objects that we can refer to may or may not meet that chosen definition.
>So there are rules that apply to him.
No. There are rules that apply to the concept of what a primary substance is. To equivocate a term being predicated to an entity with the entity itself is a category error. This is where everything you have said falls completely apart.

>Then physical laws can be primary substances
No, since they don't meet the rules applied to the abstract concept of primary substances. They don't meet the definition of the concept of primary substances.

>>22893537
This so fucked it's funny.
Alright you've followed the rules and done the necessary paperwork to get your driver's license.
No I qualify to meet the standard to receive a driver's license. The rules don't actually apply to me.
Sir just sign the paper.

>creation needs a cause
>then what created god?
>god doesn't need a creator
>then why does the universe?
Every day

>>22893587
Shit has been trotted out for thousands of years. It's fucking dumb but it's the best religitards have

>>22893587
EZ, anon. The ordered universe didn't come up with the laws that it follows. So those properties of the universe come from and are imposed externally by a greater cause behind the universe itself. This is before we even get into the fact that the natural universe began to exist.

>>22888764
God created your personal universe. It's nice that science can be used to strip away personal motivations and manifestations, but it leaves you with something narrow and sterile and can only address the highly repeatable. So nobody can ever scientifically know what the objective universe is or what it means to create it, and God can never be a scientific explanation either. You're better off leaving science to the scientific and God to the humanistic. This is why these threads even stay up in /lit/, because it all falls under the humanities.

>>22893603
>>22893295
>Are you really getting confused because we call them laws? Is this a laws need a lawgiver argument? Physical laws are an observed pattern of behavior backed by experiment that allows us to reliably make predictions of future behavior. Calling them laws is metaphorical and failing to see that is pathetic.

>>22893623
Do you think the universe isn't ordered, anon?

>>22893624
>God created your personal universe.
This suggests a fun position Christian solipsism. God exists and created you but the universe is your own creation. No one else exists besides you and God.

>>22893627
Is God ordered? If he is something must have created him by your argument. If God isn't ordered and you claim he created the universe that means order can come disorder and an ordered universe doesn't need a creator.

>>22893411
>Don't assume something that isn't necessary
That's exactly the point, by assuming an uncaused cause you're doing exactly that, from that first assumption a bunch more assumptions naturally follows, the uncaused cause can't guarantee order over the universe and let the door open to infinite regress and an impossible number of contradictory causes
>This is based on the premise that the world or universe is ordered.
As show before, the uncaused cause don't bring order but metaphysical chaos, also you're taking for granted that the relative order of the subject is the same thing as order as a thing on itself, the fact that we need causation to order our subjective world doesn't mean that existence itself need causation

>>22893643
>Is God ordered? If he is something must have created him by your argument.
Not passively ordered like the universe is, because that would imply external ordering influence. But actively ordered, sure.

>>22893643
This anon get it

>>22893647
>But actively ordered, sure.
So just say the universe is actively ordered(whatever that means) and doesn't need a creator.

>>22893603
> The ordered universe didn't come up with the laws that it follows
Do you have any proof of that?

>>22893643
Logos has metaphysical order

>>22888764
>Time came into existence
>Verb referring to a change in state
>Change implying time
>Time required a time before time to come from
You can't cause the beginning of time. It can't "come" from anywhere. There is no before time. Humans aren't equipped to comprehend this, so the typical midwit thing to do is to claim "God did it". That's moronic. Don't be a moron.

>>22892730
>not sharing money with poor people is bad
Christ said this one pretty emphatically though

>>22893644
>That's exactly the point, by assuming an uncaused cause you're doing exactly that
There has to be a first cause to start the chain of efficient causes, and there is also a final cause explaining the ultimate teleology of our proximate final causes as well.

But there doesn't need to be extra uncaused causes, so they go by Occam's razor.

>the uncaused cause can't guarantee order over the universe
The universe being ordered is empirical. The existence of the Creator is based on the premise that the universe exists. So obviously the first cause would be one that causes the observed order and existence.
>and an impossible number of contradictory causes
If it's not necessary you don't need it.

>>22893658
>So just say the universe is actively ordered(whatever that means)
An entity that is completely self-ordering with nothing imposed externally meets the definition of God. The universe however must follow certain processes. I'm saying that the order by which these processes always have to proceed must be coming from or imposed by the necessary first cause: that which caused the universe to begin existing, being both temporally and in terms of efficient causes (or causation, simply put) prior to the universe itself.

>>22893661
The current state of the universe doesn't cause the order of the universe, since the universe has a beginning. The limitations of the universe necessarily implies a supernatural cause behind it. As mentioned before, the universe itself is not uncaused because it has these things that are not coming from itself but that are imposed on it from something external, outside of the universe. Hence, supernatural instead of natural by definition. Hopefully that line of thought makes sense to people.

>>22893713
Even avoiding temporal language, it is possible to rightly maintain that "the universe is finite," and that is already enough, without going into the other arguments that we have been discussing earlier ITT.

>>22893739
>Even avoiding temporal language
It is possible to have a "first moment of time", the point is that you can't apply the rules of causation to it since there was no preceding time in which a cause could happen. If you claim a cause could occur other than before, than for all you know the human race causes time to begin to exist at some point in the future.

>>22893739
>I'm saying that the order by which these processes always have to proceed must be coming from or imposed by the necessary first cause
So just say the universe is
>completely self-ordering with nothing imposed externally
If you want to call the universe God that's cool I guess. Pantheism is a position. I'm going to stick with atheism myself.

>>22893754
>If you claim a cause could occur other than before
Just switch to talking about efficient cause priority rather than temporal.

>>22888764
interesting

>>22893756
>If you want to call the universe God that's cool I guess.
I wouldn't, for the simple reason that those attributes are exclusive to God, but they are not the only ones possessed by God, as there are other attributes to speak of in addition to these. For instance, the fact that there are degrees of goodness (and that anything is objectively better than anything else) already proves that God exists as well, by the fact that there has to be a measure or reference point for goodness, even if we can't or have never directly seen that which stands at the pinnacle of goodness. Or that which is effectively at the end of the trail. And the closer a thing is to God, the better it is. The privation of goodness OTOH is a greater degree of lack of the same goodness. The fact anything is objectively good proves this line of thought.

To argue against this, one would have to deny the fact that anything is better than anything else in any kind of objective sense. But to admit this would mean there would be no point to arguing anything at all, if one believes that is really the case. It's kind of similar to the breakdown you see from a radical skeptic who tries to deny existence. Because if a person won't admit that anything can even be right or wrong, then that person can't make any argument at all without self-contradiction. Trying to argue any idea at all inherently proves that the arguer thinks that at least one idea is right and hence, they believe that something is right. This grants the premise needed to make the argument from degree of objective goodness, which has just been proven.

>>22893868
>To argue against this
Why would I argue against it? I'm saying the universe is uncaused and in your words
>completely self-ordering with nothing imposed externally
God doesn't exist. It's like you expect me to just assume your positions is true. I don't care about what you think the attributes of God are because God doesn't exist. The argument is whether God is necessary for the universe to exist. I've easily disproven any attempt you've made to show that.

>>22893880
>It's like you expect me to just assume your positions is true.
You've just admitted that anything is true (i.e. being true is a valid concept), which provides the premise for the argument from objective goodness.

>>22893868
>I wouldn't, for the simple reason that those attributes are exclusive to God, but they are not the only ones possessed by God, as there are other attributes to speak of in addition to these. For instance, the fact that there are degrees of goodness (and that anything is objectively better than anything else) already proves that God exists as well, by the fact that there has to be a measure or reference point for goodness, even if we can't or have never directly seen that which stands at the pinnacle of goodness. Or that which is effectively at the end of the trail. And the closer a thing is to God, the better it is. The privation of goodness OTOH is a greater degree of lack of the same goodness. The fact anything is objectively good proves this line of thought.

God bless you, what a wonderful argument, let's call it "the relativity of good"

>>22893880
>Why would I argue against it? I'm saying the universe is uncaused and in your words

the universe is caused

>God doesn't exist.

God does exist

>>22893890
No I've been responding to your argument from an uncaused cause. Since you've moved away from that argument I'll take that as you giving up on it and admitting I'm right. The universe does not need God to cause it.

You've moved on to the Aquinas's ontological argument that the existence of a gradation implies a maximum. Which is clearly stupid just from considering the natural numbers. There always exists another natural number larger than a given number. But there is no largest number. Aquinas gave the example of fire being the maximum heat. But that is easily disproven by modern physics. A gradation in no way implies the existence of a maximum.

>>22893909
>the universe is caused
>God does exist

>the universe isn't caused
>God doesn't exist

These are both sets of assumptions. One is not privileged over the other besides by Occam's razor.

>>22893903
As long as at least some things are objective, that's all you really need. You don't even need to get something strong like an admission or proof that all things are objective, or anything as demanding as that, you get this just by granting that at least something is objectively true or better than anything else. This has been argued plenty of times in the past.

>>22893903
>>22893913
See >>22893913
>You've moved on to the Aquinas's ontological argument that the existence of a gradation implies a maximum. Which is clearly stupid just from considering the natural numbers. There always exists another natural number larger than a given number. But there is no largest number. Aquinas gave the example of fire being the maximum heat. But that is easily disproven by modern physics. A gradation in no way implies the existence of a maximum

>>22888764
Our brains can’t comprehend divine points of creation like something from nothing or eternity, but that’s just because we cannot fathom them literally. Doesn’t mean that our logic is infallible and applies to something like god

>>22893980
>Doesn’t mean that our logic is infallible and applies to something like god
God is illogical is something atheists have been saying for literally thousands of years.

>>22888839
>if we say that god doesn't need a creator, then we're reallying in a quality of "something existing without a creator" which then refutes the axiom "everything needs a creator" making the whole argument of a creator fallacious,
What if we say "everything but God needs a creator"

>>22893995
>What if we say "everything but God needs a creator"
That's called special pleading and is an informal fallacy. You could just as easily say "everything but the early universe needs a creator"

>>22893913
Creation is studied in mans actions, as we create and develop things like AI it becomes clear that a more powerful being did something to us in the same way.

“ Man, Sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.”

>>22893739
>There has to be a first cause to start the chain of efficient causes
This lead you to the problem of what caused that cause, to which the uncaused cause is not a logical answer since it breaks the chain of causation
>The universe being ordered is empirical
This doesn't mean that there's a first ontological cause, the fact that the world is ordered proves that the uncaused cause doesn't exist, since as show before the uncaused cause brings chaos and infinite regress into the world
>wrong, a self sufficient subsyance is not god, is just a self suficient substance, atheist and scientist also believe in that, materialism for example believes in matter as a srlf sufficient substance, realist believe in a thing in itself as a self sufficient substance and so on and so on

>>22893739
>, the universe itself is not uncaused because it has these things that are not coming from itself but that are imposed on it from something external
Which things?

>>22894002
This

>>22893913
>admitting I'm right.
Again, you're admitting right exists, you just don't agree on the particulars.

>The universe does not need God to cause it.
We've heard this several times, but I personally don't see where all the earlier statements about the universe being passively ordered were addressed. I don't mind if you misunderstand after all this (because it's bound to happen with at least some people), as long as others get what I'm saying.

>Aquinas gave the example of fire being the maximum heat.
Hmm, let's see, where do I start here. I am not him, nor did I mention Aquinas, although there is some overlap in terminology in places, sure. I actually strongly disagree with various conclusions of Aquinas as well, same thing with Aristotle as well, but that doesn't mean I think 100% of the ideas found in the writings of either person is proven to be wrong, just because I disagree with some specific conclusion made by these fallible individuals. I even admit to being fallible myself. But that doesn't affect the validity of what we have been talking about specifically here. You can point out where a person makes a mistake, and I will be ready to agree with you. But that doesn't disprove everything they have ever written. Likewise, you can show that I have some overlap of agreement or use of the same terminology with another person such as a past philosopher on some subject, but that furthermore doesn't mean that I agree with said people or person on every subject. So the fact that Aquinas thought that fire was the maximum heat (or the fact that Aristotle apparently had some wrong ideas about teeth?) in no way affects my arguments here. It doesn't affect what I'm saying just because some things I've said happen to share some similarities to what one of these people may have written in the past when talking about a similar subject. I'm not him, and his fallacious arguments on one subject don't even logically disprove his arguments on another subject, much less do those logically disprove anything I've said, obviously.

>natural numbers
Alright, here's how I think of this argument. Let's assume no category errors here just for the moment. The fact that the natural numbers are countably infinite therefore does show the existence of something infinite, at least abstractly. This could be compared analogically to the infinite goodness of God (having the attribute of being all-good). God would meet PART of the definition of a "maximum," being greater in goodness than anything else, but not the part of the definition that implies that there is an upper limit to goodness, because there is none. No upper limit exists to God's goodness. So I don't think this is a contradiction on that front. However, if there is a category error in play here (law of excluded middle), then the comparison you've made between the set N and an entity of a different category is invalid in that case (albeit God is infinite, regardless of how you view it, having no limits).

>>22894002
By the law of excluded middle, everything is either created or uncreated. The premise of anything existing implies the existence of a first cause (Creator) which is uncreated, specifically one which has imposed existence and other properties on every caused entity, but which is not caused by anything else.

>>22893300
That's question begging (petitio principii fallacy) you're taking for granted that a primary sustance exist to validate your point that god (a primary substance) exist, this already refute your argument

>>22894027
The laws that empirically existed before the current state of the universe and that still exist, causing the world and everything in it to behave in the way that is observed, obeying certain physical laws and so on. These laws, as mentioned earlier, aren't primary substances themselves, but they are rather the visible effects of a chain of efficient causes that, one way or another, has to go back to the Creator, who is known and usually referred to as God.

>>22894040
>but I personally don't see where all the earlier statements about the universe being passively ordered were addressed
See >>22893658. Passively and actively ordered are something you just made up so until you say what they mean I can't address them.

>So the fact that Aquinas thought that fire was the maximum heat (or the fact that Aristotle apparently had some wrong ideas about teeth?) in no way affects my arguments here.
It's an example that Aquinas thought showed that a gradation implied a maximum existed. It doesn't.

>But that doesn't disprove everything they have ever written
It disproves Aquinas claiming a gradation implies a maximum. Which is what we're talking about.

>The fact that the natural numbers are countably infinite therefore does show the existence of something infinite, at least abstractly
Infinity is not a number. If your analogy was valid God would not be any degree of good.

>However, if there is a category error in play here (law of excluded middle), then the comparison you've made between the set N and an entity of a different category is invalid in that case (albeit God is infinite, regardless of how you view it, having no limits).
The error is you assuming a gradation implies a maximum. You have given zero proof that is the case besides just assuming it to be true. I have given several examples of gradation not implying a maximum since a maximum doesn't exist in those cases. I'm right and you are wrong.

>>22894002
I dunno man but isn't the idea of a God justifiable to be an exception to a universal rule? Especially if we assume he created said rule and excluded himself.

>>22894053
>The premise of anything existing implies the existence of a first cause (Creator) which is uncreated
We've been over this repeatedly. Just say the universe is uncaused and do away with God.

>>22894062
So do you think the universe is not ordered at all or do you agree that there are physical laws at work which can be observed and that the universe follows them? I'd be interested to know your view on that. Then maybe we can talk about whether or not those mental constructs we call "laws" are really independent entities or simply abstract concepts we use, similar to magnetic field lines.

>>22894075
>I dunno man but isn't the idea of a God justifiable to be an exception to a universal rule?
Why not the early universe being the exception?
That's why special pleading is seen as a fallacy, it allows you pick the exception to fit your argument.

>>22893986
Logic is part of the design like anything else. We can’t comprehend a higher power, being part of the framework.

>>22894053
>The premise of anything existing implies the existence of a first cause (Creator)
No, the premise of anything existing implies existence not creation, there's no self evident need for a creator that justify existence, since the self sufficiency that would need to be applied to the creator in order to make him usefull can then be applied to existence itself, the notion of a creator is self defeating

>>22894095
Again what atheists have been saying for thousands of years. Now that you've admitted believing in God is illogical I feel that I've won the argument.

>>22894100
If you take god as scripture takes him, using logic to reason out a being like that is illogical, and impossible.

>>22894084
You're equation order=god again the fact that the universe has a order don't prove the existence of god, just proves that the universe has order, atheist believe that too, you're trying to stretch the deffinition of god to make him irrefutable but end up creating a crypto-atheist argumet, that's why Jacobi called Spinoza a nihilist crypto-atheist, if god is what guaratees a bunch of laws and cosmological coherence then he's not different than a mere scientific concept, you can just do matetialism at that point

>>22894068
>The laws that empirically existed before the current state of the universe and that still exist
Which laws? All laws on the universe are expressions of the universe not something outside and before the universe

>>22894074
>Passively and actively ordered are something you just made up
No, not really. Passive and active voice are a distinction that has been made consistently. Passive voice means something is being done to an object, whereas active voice means the object is doing the action itself. There is also something a middle voice, which is when an object is acting and simultaneously being affected by the action. I didn't make this distinction up, but I did bring it up as it is relevant to this discussion. The universe is passively ordered by something greater than itself, but it is not capable of actively determining the order of all things; at least some of the ordering has to come from external causes. Thus, the active versus passive distinction.

>Infinity is not a number.
The set of Natural numbers N is countably infinite. In that sense one can draw an analogical comparison, at least a imperfect analogy perhaps, between an infinite set of numbers and an infinite God. I don't see the contradiction between the set of natural numbers N, which is (countably) infinite and the existence of infinite goodness with no upper bound, which is what I'm saying God is.

I also said that God's infinite goodness would meet part of the definition of a mathematical maximum, in that there is no goodness greater than God. However, it would not meet the part of the definition of "maximum" that implies an upper bound, because there is no limit to God's goodness. Thus, the concept of "maximum" as an upper bound breaks down when applied to either God or to the Natural numbers, although the concept of "maximum" partially applies to God in the sense of being infinitely more good than anything else.

Also, this is the second time that I have carefully written this information regarding the components of the definition of "maximum" and how they apply. I also wrote this in the previous post and you did not choose to respond to it.

>>22894077
Read what I wrote earlier in response to this if you like, as I'm sure others already did.

>>22894133
>that's why Jacobi called Spinoza a nihilist crypto-atheist, if god is what guaratees a bunch of laws and cosmological coherence then he's not different than a mere scientific concept,
It's part of general revelation and it proves to be undeniable no matter who you are or what era we are in. Then you have special revelation which tells us a lot more, such as the Trinity.
>you can just do matetialism at that point
None of my arguments, which are based on general revelation, actually require you to be some kind of a clockwork deist though. At some point we can move from establishing the basics to talking about what has God specially revealed. Anytime someone tries to revert back to these really basic anti-God arguments, as many try to do through various forms of sophistry, we can always easily show on the basis of basic observation the necessary existence of the supernatural (as I'm doing here for instance) to get us back on track.

>>22894087
I think it's because you can place God as the beginning, and the early universe you can keeping going in "well what about the earlier universe?".
And when I say God, I mean as the exception of the rule of "who created him then".
It's mostly to me the idea that creation begins with something uncreated with a will rather than uncreated and will-less is more reasonable. Intelligent design and all that.
You could also say "well what if the universe has a will?" then that would be God, also God made his will known (assuming you believe in a religion whatever it may be), and the universe didn't.

>>22894167
> general revelation
That's an appeal to authority, a fallacy, you can't use "revelations" as a logical argument, i can use buddhist revelations to argument that nor god or causality exist then

>>22894171
>I think it's because you can place God as the beginning, and the early universe you can keeping going in "well what about the earlier universe?".
Huh? What you can do the same exact thing with God it's been done over and over in this thread. What created God?
>It's mostly to me the idea that creation begins with something uncreated with a will rather than uncreated and will-less is more reasonable.
You've got it backwards. The uncreated cause having a will is less reasonable not more.
>Intelligent design and all that.
Intelligent design is a joke.

>>22894171
Your notion of god is no different than that of the big bang or a quantum singularity, pretty much materialism for perennialist

>>22894100
Yeah but what about it being intentional? Also I don't think it's illogical to admit that your logic is limited but I see your point

>>22894179
>That's an appeal to authority
General revelation is taken to be that which is commonly observed by all of us, such as the fact that the universe exists. I'm not really appealing to an authority to take the premise that the universe exists, but some radical skeptic might try to deny it, and I would reveal their foolishness if they did. "General revelation" here does not include that which is specially revealed by God through prophecy to specific people, to visions from God or things of that nature, which would be considered to be "special revelation" instead.

>>22894190
>Huh? What you can do the same exact thing with God it's been done over and over in this thread. What created God?
I just explained that
>You've got it backwards. The uncreated cause having a will is less reasonable not more.
Why
>Intelligent design is a joke.
I dunno it seems reasonable to me

>>22894192
I guess so, is there an issue with it?

>>22894167
>Passive and active voice are a distinction that has been made consistently.
In fucking grammar you retard. Do you think grammar has something to do with reality?

>Thus, the concept of "maximum" as an upper bound breaks down when applied to either God or to the Natural numbers
And your whole argument relies on the a maximum existing. So you've undermined your own argument.

>Read what I wrote earlier in response to this if you like, as I'm sure others already did.
I responded multiple times. Eventually you just gave up and admitted defeat.

>Also, this is the second time that I have carefully written this information regarding the components of the definition of "maximum" and how they apply
I responded to it in the fucking post you're responding to. You have yet to give any reason for assuming a gradation implies the existence of a maximum

>>22894190
>Huh? What you can do the same exact thing with God it's been done over and over in this thread. What created God?
God is uncreated

>Intelligent design is a joke.
top kek, and why it's a joke to you? it feels reasonable to me

>>22894206
>I just explained that
No you didn't. You asserted that God has no cause so he can't be created. When I asserted the universe has no cause you insisted you could you could ask about the universes that created it. Why would the regress stop when you say God is uncreated but continue when I say the universe is uncreated?

>>22894215
>God is uncreated
So say the universe is uncreated

>>22894234
The universe is created by God, it's so simple

>>22894214
>I responded to it in the fucking post you're responding to. You have yet to give any reason for assuming a gradation implies the existence of a maximum
I'm sorry, but that's just not accurate. I've given it twice and you've chosen not to respond to it twice. I explained how the definition of a maximum as that which exceeds all other things does apply to God, but the definition of a mathematical maximum which implies the existence of an "upper bound" does not apply to Natural numbers (as mentioned previously by you) and likewise the idea of there being an "upper bound" to God's goodness also does not apply to God, since God is infinitely good and there is no limit to God's goodness. So I fail to see the problem, since we can take the "greater than all other things" component of the definition of maximum for God, yet without taking the "upper bound/limit" component of the definition of maximum as defined in mathematics. That is why I said that it wasn't a perfect analogy, although the part about the Natural numbers having no upper limit and God's goodness having no upper limit is sound and I don't see a problem with it.

>>22894227
Because I said it's more likely, and I explained why I thought so. I'm not putting anything forth as a fact, just my opinion.

>>22894245
>I explained how the definition of a maximum as that which exceeds all other things does apply to God
You have given no reason to believe that maximum exists. You're relying on the assumption that a gradation implies the existence of a maximum. I have given two examples of a gradation not implying a maximum since a maximum doesn't exist. Again you're trying to show that God exists but the assumption you're using has two given counterexamples.

To be totally clear why should I believe a gradation implies the existence of a maximum? You have given no argument for that

>>22888783
Based

>>22888839
Yeah it's a simple fact of we are the imagination of ourselves this energy or world or life and we are in fact one consciousness and life is just an eternal immortal energy. There must be a creator it seems like all roads point to that kek

>>22894199
The fact that the universe exist don't prove that god exist tho

>>22894261
>You're relying on the assumption that a gradation implies the existence of a maximum.
Not in terms of an upper limit or upper bound, as the mathematical definition of "maximum" requires. But the imperfect analogy that I see between the scale of goodness and the set N follows nicely as far as there being "no upper bound," which is one thing that a mathematical maximum has to be. The analogy breaks down when looking at the other aspect of mathematical maximum, but that is fine because this isn't a perfect analogy. So the analogy between the example of yours and my example is partial but it's not perfect for the following reason: God is the actual greatest good, while the set of Natural numbers does not have a specific element that is the greatest, because that would imply an upper bound since all natural numbers are finite and every element in N has an element greater than it also in N. That's how your first "counterexample" from the previous two posts lines up with what I've been saying, as far as I can tell. It's not much of a counterexample in the sense you've been referring to maximums.

>I have given two examples of a gradation not implying a maximum since a maximum doesn't exist.
Do you really want to give up the natural numbers and look at heat now? Since you haven't really defined what you mean by gradation here, I will just say that in the history of the universe, for any epsilon there exists at some point in spacetime a maximum concentration of energy density within epsilon such that all other neighborhoods of the same volume within the universe contain less energy. I am not going to bother making rigorous definitions or talk about quantum theory here. Just choose any definition of energy concentration you want. Then for that definition, it can be said that at some point there existed a maximum for the entire history of the observable universe, because the measurement will always be some finite amount of energy, no matter how high, due to the finite natural universe. Hopefully that makes sense.

>To be totally clear why should I believe a gradation implies the existence of a maximum? You have given no argument showing what you think the term "gradation" even means, so I'm unfortunately not going to be able to reasonably defend something that I haven't even said. If the scale of goodness is considered to be a gradation, it is obviously of a different character than something that is ostensibly a scalar number line. I'm not trying to tell you what to do here but maybe you could define what you think a gradation means first before just asking me to defend it. You are the one who knows what exactly gradation means in this context, as I have not mentioned this term until now. I only started talking about maxima at all because someone else brought that into the conversation first as well. And there I would use a slightly looser definition for "maximum" with regards to the maximum of goodness, as God is actually infinite.

>>22894319
Ok, so we've switched back to the other line of argument again, which is covered basically by this post: >>22893266

We have probably repeated the above fact – that is, "The universe [passively] follows laws that are imposed on it, so therefore it is caused by those physical laws rather than being the uncaused cause" – five or six other times in other posts ITT as well.

>>22894437
>I only started talking about maxima at all because someone else brought that into the conversation first as well
This is you right? >>22893868
>For instance, the fact that there are degrees of goodness (and that anything is objectively better than anything else) already proves that God exists as well, by the fact that there has to be a measure or reference point for goodness, even if we can't or have never directly seen that which stands at the pinnacle of goodness
Degrees of goodness = gradation of goodness. You're saying degrees of goodness means there is a maximum. You've given no reason to believe that is true. I have given two examples where degrees of something exist but there is no maximum.

Again to be even more clear since you don't seem to know what gradation means. Why does degrees of goodness mean there is a pinnacle of goodness(your words)?

>>22894455
Yes and that was also already answered, the fact that the universe has order only imply that the universe has order atheist also believe in that(they also believe in trascendentals like truth and beauty but that doesn't make them any less atheist), implying the existence of a god from that is a non sequitur, is not self evident that order =god, only that order=order order is equal to itself not god

>>22888764
If the universe can't come from nothing, how come this person god can come from nothing? If there is logic for god to come from nothing, then the universe can come from nothing.

>>22894457
>This is you right? >>22893868 (You)
>You're saying degrees of goodness means there is a maximum.
Back then, I likely subconsciously avoided using the term "maximum" (which you will see I never used that word once) and opted for other terminology exactly because it could be taken to imply that there is an "upper bound" or "limit" when I don't mean to imply that at all. That's probably why I chose to use other terminology and never once used the specifc term maximum, because it could introduce confusion. But later someone else implied that's what I said or had been saying, and they asked (or I guess demanded) me to defend it, so I did my best. I took advantage of that demand by that anon as a springboard to talk about other useful topics.

>I have given two examples where degrees of something exist but there is no maximum.
For heat in the natural universe, there actually would have existed an upper bound somewhere in the finite universe, regardless of what definition of heat, energy, or temperature that you pick, as infinite heat doesn't exist in the finite universe.

>you don't seem to know what gradation means
You're just trying to be slippery with terminology here as so far, I haven't seen you define it either. Apparently that is a difficult thing to do, it seems. I know that if I define it, you will certainly disagree and produce your own definition. There is more than one definition out there, so the person who was alleging that I made that claim would just equivocate between two or more different definitions. If I assume to use one definition, they will just switch to the other and then pretend like I obviously should have known. There's no winning.
>Degrees of goodness = gradation of goodness.
Ok, so now tell us how you relate this concept to the scalar-valued number line containing the set of Natural numbers. I want to know exactly how both of these things meet the same definition. Because it seems to be that these are qualitatively different, so the latter isn't necessarily going to be a useful counterexample to the other (though it's almost a good positive example), as it's apples and oranges.

>>22894503
Order results from the specific physical laws of nature among other things. Those specific laws are not dependent on the state of the universe but instead govern the way that the universe itself behaves. Therefore, these laws (which we are able to imperfectly observe, and we then abstract from the behavior of particular objects) are causatively prior to the universe. Thus in plain terms, there is something outside of the universe itself that is causing the universe to behave in a certain way, resulting in a specific kind of order appearing within it. Whatever the actual thing outside of the universe is, its presence and influence has a manifestation by the fact that the entire universe follows its impositions. If the immediate cause of that is not uncaused, its own cause for existence eventually goes back to the first mover.

>>22894589
Man get a grip. I clearly stated the what the issue is
>Why does degrees of goodness mean there is a pinnacle of goodness(your words)?
You have given zero argument to support this.

>>22894599
Aha you see that's where it falls apart though. You can't define it.

>>22894646
I don't even know what is going at this point. Are you still the anon that wrote this >>22893868? His argument for God relied on gradation implying the existence of a maximum or in his words degrees of goodness the existence of a pinnacle of goodness.
He has not given any reason to believe this is true and I have given two examples of degrees of something not having a pinnacle.

>>22894589
>Those specific laws are not dependent on the state of the universe but instead govern the way that the universe itself behaves
Those laws don't exist as things on itself but as things relative to our understanding, they're categories we use to understand reality not things that actually exist by themselves, you can't take for granted that they exist outside or before this universe/reality, doing so is begging the question

>>22894832
>they're categories we use to understand reality not things that actually exist by themselves, you can't take for granted that they exist outside or before this universe/reality,
Yes, because they are abstractions. The laws are what is observed inside the universe; the so-called natural laws such as gravity by which matter and energy behaves. But the true cause of that specific behavior, which manifests here and is observed and commonly described in everyday language as "natural laws," cannot be contingent on the state of the universe, as the real causes responsible for the observed behavior are logically prior to the finite, ordered universe. If these undefined causes are responsible for the manifestation of what we call space and time, then they have to be logically prior to them, as if their existence depended on space and time existing, then they wouldn't be around to cause those things to exist in the first place. These have to be logically prior, and thus must exist outside of the observable, natural universe. (I say "these," but this could also be one cause, and that cause in turn may or may not be the Creator or another intermediate efficient cause itself, but no matter what, the actual existence of anything with a cause necessitates a Creator which imposes on all things and is imposed on by nothing).

>>22894242
Ironically enough, people in the universe created God. As an illusion.

>>22892625
I don't think an empirical refutation of Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, or Taoism, is possible, since they all are about different viewpoints you can take regarding reality. Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta in particular are really about the nature of mind.

>>22888764
Creation implies a creator. We use the world creator because humans are relatively good at making stuff with their hands, so their initial thought when they look around and see something exquisite is to think 'who made it? hows that work' not 'wow what a view!'. You can do both of course but one is more prevalent than the other. What if what is always has been? God, in pretty much all interpretations, Brahman, the Dao, the Monad, Buddha Nature, YHWH, whatever you want to call it /IS/ and always has been and all that there will ever be. 'Nothing' is a phony concept. What do you mean by nothing? A featureless void? Featureless void itself is a feature, so nothing the way most people talk about it is an illusion married to a futility.

Is believing in God is reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe? Sure. But thinking of God ultimately as 'some guy' who is a really skilled technician and cosmic politician is silly.

>>22888764
>Is believing in God is reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe?
I don't think so. By Occam's Razor, that would only work if it's a better explanation than the universe simply existing uncaused. It seems to me that for it to be a real explanation, you have to explain precisely what God is and WHY he would create the universe (as opposed to creating nothing or creating a different world that he would be more likely to create). It's difficult enough for theists to describe what their God is, but there have been respectable attempts. However, on the second point, why he would create our universe, I've never heard a good reason. Either there seems to be no good reason for God to create, or, according to the description given him, it would make more sense for him to create a world very different from our own.

>The universe can't come from nothing
Why not? It seems to me plausible that some very fundamental physical stuff could exist without any external source, which is the relevant sense of "come from nothing" here. To be clear, this doesn't mean that it would just pop into existence at some moment in time; whenever there's time, there's a universe. Rather, either spacetime itself would come from nothing, or some physical stuff that gives rise to the existence of spacetime would come from nothing. Why couldn't this be the case? You can't say it's against the laws of physics, because the laws of physics only exist and operate within the universe. They can't stop the universe from existing. And the theist can't say it's impossible in principle for something to come from nothing, because they believe God came from nothing (in the revelant sense, i.e. that there is no external source for God's existence).

>I know there are explanations such as the Big bang,
The big bang theory doesn't explain the origin or beginning of the cosmos. Simply put, it's what the theme song of that TV show says: "Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state. Then nearly 14 billion years ago, expansion started." Did anything exist before that? We don't know. Is there anything outside what we call the universe, like a multiverse? We don't know.

>>22888764
It's not reasonable until you define what you mean. Otherwise it is just waving away the question without actually answering it.

>>22892768
That's just sad. Making up an answer is a terrible substitute for finding the real one. Even not knowing is better than willful ignorance.

>>22895315
>However, on the second point, why he would create our universe, I've never heard a good reason.
There are good reasons out of special revelation, such as that the universe was made in order for it to be given from the Father to the Son, because the Father loves the Son eternally if you believe the biblical account (John chapter 3). This explanation doesn't work with a unitarian god, and this situation is often seen as a big weakness with unitarian belief contra Trinitarianism because of it because you really don't have a reason.

The reason for the inherent value of human life would also stem from the fact that God made man in the image of God (namely the Son, according to the biblical account in Colossians 1:15 combined with Genesis 1:26). It doesn't mean I have all the answers as a fallible being but at least that makes some intuitive sense to me if we assume the biblical account is true.

>And the theist can't say it's impossible in principle for something to come from nothing
Well, my understanding is that the position maintained is that it's impossible for something that necessarily must have a cause to not have a cause - and any cause exists logically prior in the chain of efficient causality, such that it is completely non-contingent on the effect that it causes. The facts in the above sentence are combined with the fact that anything that is finite would have to be caused since it has a beginning, combined with the observation that since finite things do exist, it necessitates the existence of the uncaused Creator to be at the root of the chain of efficient causes (logically as well as temporally) leading to the effect of bringing the empirically observed objects into existence in the first place. So, the only premise you really need here for this, is that it be established that something finite exists. That's it.

Once you have the explanation for one chain of efficient causes for a finite object, there can also be a simlar explanation from the Creator for all other caused objects in existence as well, all you need to do is allow for more chains of efficient causes. As to the "why these things exist" question, instead of how, that goes into teleology and the study of final causes for things, both proximate ones for various objects and working together toward an ultimate final cause for the entire universe itself, which is to glorify God.

>some physical stuff that gives rise to the existence of spacetime would come from nothing. Why couldn't this be the case?
Well, physical stuff has to be part of the physical universe. If referring to something outside of the universe, it is defined to be "supernatural" - since the laws of physics do not have to be imposed on it. But we can still at least say that, if some supernatural thing has *anything* imposed on it, then it too is caused. Such a [hypothetical, unobservable] entity is still caused rather than uncaused even if it isn't being forced to follow the laws of our universe.

>>22888870
the universe is bound by laws, a creator would not be, simple as

People have been saying the gods are responsible for everything that can't be explained.
As we understand shit better they just move the goalpost further and further and now basically all they have is the creation of the universe.
I mean many Christians now believe in evolution because the proof is just too evident and they don't want to look like retards.

Science is powerless to explain it for sure but there are many scenarios that are as probable as the existence of god.
We just don't have access to what was before the big bang.

>>22895051
God created himself, nobody created God