Did you gain any credentials or qualifications in the field, have you worked in the field professionally?
Since @Sherlock-Holmes you admit something cannot be an explanation for itself. It follows that the claim a deity created the universe cannot be an explanation of itself, it necessarily then requires explanation:
How is a deity possible?
Where did this deity come from?
How is the supernatural power to create a universe possible?
Where does the supernatural power to create a universe come from?
How did a deity use supernatural powers to create the universe.
As a bare minimum those questions need an expansive, accurate and objective explanation, by your own admission.
Still waiting for you to explain why it is bias or prejudice to describe gospels as “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.”
When do you think you might have time to Google the phrase open minded, and the word myth and get to back to me on this?
I’m still waiting on Sherlock to address a question I suggested earlier in this thread:
If God exists, then where did God come from?
If God has always existed, then why not skip a step and say that the Universe has always existed?
Or . . . if we decide that the origin of God is an unanswerable question, then why not skip a step and decide that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question?
He’s already said he doesn’t know, though of course his posts are too dishonest, and biased in favour of his religious indoctrination to critically and honestly examine what that means, alongside his endless argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies about gaps in our scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.
You nailed it, perfectly, and this exposes the false equivalence fallacy at the heart of @Sherlock-Holmes irrational verbiage.
I’m not asserting anything of the sort, this is an ex recto apologetic fabrication on your part.
Hertog clearly and explicitly states in that article, that the sum over histories view of the universe he’s working on implies an evolutionary basis for our currently observed laws of physics. He explicitly uses the relevant words.
Oh, and since I presented one of Hertog’s actual scientific papers, which presents, wait for it, a path integral formulation for his sum over histories proposal, your garbage assertion about me claiming he purportedly pulls laws out of thin air is a bare faced lie on your part.
Oh wait, Hertog himself states that past interactions shaped the history of the string landscape. I never asserted that he stated otherwise. Once again, stop lying.
FYI, I should have mentioned this in the post, but these questions are not my own. I should have indicated that Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov explored these ideas in their writings . . . although–in fairness–I did credit them with these questions in other threads on this forum.
I have no idea, but why is that relevant? When the physics community began to speculate that fundamental particles were not fundamental at all but apparently constructed from quarks, do you think you’d look intelligent standing up and saying “If quarks exist then what are quarks made from”?
The question is reasonable but the fact we can ask that question does not undermine the original proposition that fundamental particles are really combinations of quarks.
Because the are different propositions about different things. The statement God has always existed is not a scientific statement it is nothing to do with the created universe. But the statement the universe has always existed is making an unscientific claim because science presumes cause and effect, things happen because, things happen as a result of, observations can be explained in terms of other material factors.
“It’s always existed” has no more epistemological value than God of the gaps arguments, if you reject those then you must also reject yours.
If inserting God in cases where we can’t currently explain is deemed unacceptable then why is inserting “it has always existed” deemed acceptable? They are both statements of faith for example.
The difference is that we have evidence of quarks, and it is perfectly legitimate to ask “What are quarks made of?”
We do not have physical or mathematical evidence of God. In fact, if God exists, then it seems reasonable to assume that He doesn’t want us to believe in Him. Perhaps this is because He (like any parent) wants His children to stand on their own two feet and function with their own resources . . . and not be like a 30 year old child who still lives at home with mom and dad playing video games in their basement.
We weren’t even talking about evidence, you wrote:
So your question says that if we did have evidence for God (“if God exists”) the asking the question “where did God come” from somehow undermines the argument that God exists. But that no more undermines that than asking “what are quarks made of” undermines the hypothesis about fundamental particles being made from quarks.
I agree, one that has objective reality, and one that does not. So one we know is objectively possible, and one (any extant deity) we do not know is objectively possible.
No it doesn’t, it evidences it, and only within the temporal universe, you are simply assuming it would apply at all, let alone in the same way before the big bang, and again if you are going to infer cause and effect, then you have to use a special pleading fallacy to imagine the cause wasn’t a natural phenomenon, since that is what we evidence, every single time we understand causes.
You are cherry picking, and making unevidenced sweeping assumptions. To add a deity you can’t objectively evidence is even possible, or explain the origins of, using supernatural magic you cannot explain at all.
It is irrational, by definition, since it is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Sigh, because we know for an objective fact it exists, ipso facto we know it its existence is possible, unlike deities and magic. Just how many times does this need to be explained?
Nonsense, and religious faith as has been explained exhaustively differs from the common definition of the word faith, so this is doubly disingenuous.
You overuse the term “objectively” Sheldon. It’s as if you regard it as a sharp knife that you can bring to the fight from time to time, get a quick stab into the torso as it were - “Take that to the belly you dumb theist, that’ll teach you, you and your lack of objectivity”.
But you really are overdoing it. You can only experience your own experiences you know, everything you do is rooted in that truth, life unfortunately for you really is subjective, your experiences are yours alone.
Is the many worlds interpretation objective reality? Yes for some it is but for others it isn’t.
Since all of science rests upon quantum physics, all of science rests upon this subjective interpretation of what reality really is.
So please stop using “objective reality” as some attempt to legitimize your arguments when you have no idea what it is, how to distinguish it from alternatives or what it even means.
Sure, I’m sure you can trawl the web and find a definition that suits you, just as atheists do for the term “atheism”.
It is true that the term “faith” is used much more in theology, the term is used more in theology than say “trust”. But it doesn’t follow from that that the word has a purely theological meaning.
I have trust that God created the universe you have trust that it (tries to keep a straight face) created itself, I don’t know why so many supposedly educated people these days can’t see the hilarity of that latter belief.
I’ve tried over and over to explain but you can’t get it, you just don’t understand this subject well enough to understand what I’m saying to you.
If you think it’s OK to call me a liar may I call you an imbecile? do the rules allow that or are only atheists permitted to make uncivil posts over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ?
I’d likely be banned for six months if I posted as you do, it ain’t fair, really it ain’t.
On the contrary, you made two contradictory claims:
You also lied, asserting you had not made the first claim here:
That’s a lie, all you’d need to do is explain how you know we must have an initial belief before we can develop new beliefs, when you admit you don’t know where that initial belief comes from. That initial belief would be a counterexample that destroys your assertion, since you admit you don’t know where it comes from. All the rest is smoke and mirrors from you.
I presented an irrefutable lie you’d told.
There it is again for everyone to see. Irrational Ad hominem doesn’t frighten me, though it’s hard not to see hurling ad hominem to avoid addressing your lie as anything but cowardly.
Another lie…though you may want to delete that ad hominem. It’s pretty dishonest and cowardly to try and hide it behind a faux question as well.
I’m afraid you and I are done, I have no interest whatsoever in trying to discuss any subject with you, I won’t be responding to any posts you make in any thread.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Another lie, I have only ever used the dictionary definition.
Atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
I also offered that with a link more than once, and explained that this definition is inclusive of all atheists, but the loaded one you want to use that does not reflect common usage is not. So I guess it’s just easier for you to lie like this than honestly address those facts.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
I could care less since you can demonstrate not one shred of objective evidence to support the claim, nor any rational argument a deity or anything supernatural is even possible.
That blatant straw man fallacy is another lie, it’s bizarre you turn into such a crybaby when your lies are pointed out, but keep lying so blatantly, quote a single post of mine ever making that claim or admit you just told a brazen lie?
It’s not a belief I hold, nor have I ever seen any atheist here claim to, but I fail to see how it is any less hilarious an assertion, than claiming an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition did it using inexplicable magic.
FYI we know the universe exists and is therefore possible, so that’s a reason it creating itself from a previous as yet understood form is demonstrably less hilarious than claiming an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition did it using inexplicable magic.
Yes, you do seem to be painting yourself into a corner with your duplicity, if you think this excuse will justify hiding from me exposing that crack on. You’re the one lying to me and about me though, and hurling ad hominem, but if you want to flounce out in a sulk be my guest. I will carry on exposing your irrational and unevidenced claims, and duplicity.
And you felt obliged to respond to say this, yet again. You may post as you are minded to, as will I, and I can go on exposing your unevidenced irrational and mendacious posts without any feedback.
