What’s your problem with the explanation I just gave you?
It is merely a claim about what you believe happened, it does not explain how it happened, or how it is even possible. The claim has no explanatory powers, as it is just a facile claim.
Lets try a hypothetical analogy, I have magic beans, and I went to Mars, then returned, using their supernatural powers, but now they’re all gone. It explains what I claim happened, not how any of it was possible or how any of it was done.
Perhaps you’ll listen to Richard Feynman then, watch this and learn what physicists mean by “explain” and “how”.
Feynman did not make the claim a deity created the universe, you did, would you like another quote of the claim?
You keep referring to your claim as an explanation for the origin of the universe, so please explain how did a deity create the universe using the supernatural, how is a deity or the supernatural possible?
You already said a thing cannot be an explanation for itself, so please explain where did this deity come from, how is it’s existence possible? I am giving you free rein here, unfettered scope, surely your belief has some explanatory powers beyond the bare claim a deity created the universe?
As I said, one could say a wizard created the universe using supernatural powers, if as you are trying to assert, that is sufficient “explanation” why is that not an explanation for the origins of the universe?
“Magic Man did it” doesn’t “explain” anything. It’s a blind assertion, most of the fetishists thereof being a mixture of the stupid, the complacent, the wilfully ignorant and the duplicitous.
Of course, most of the fetishists for this assertion aren’t actually interested in seeking even elementary answers to questions about the natural world, let alone rigorous ones.
Instead, their interest lies in pretending that a cartoon magic man exists, that is going to heap all manner of goodies upon them, while subjecting people they hate to sadism and brutality.
At bottom, that’s the real motivation for many mythology fanboys. It’s the means by which they temporarily vent enough of their hatreds and bigotries to prevent themselves exploding, and seek a ephemeral escape from their own inadequacies.
Indeed, the most mendacious apologetic fabrications frequently arise from the specimens with the least talent, and most conspicuous abundance of both cognitive and ethical defects, creationists being among the most floridly pathological in this respect, followed closely by the self-centred “Rapture” rabble.
All too often, these pathogens in the discoursive ecosystem are not only gleeful pursuers of the most recrudescently bilious parts of their chosen mythologies, but possess a frankly sick yearning for a sociopathic and murderous theocracy.
None of them, of course, ever think that someone else might ascend the greasy pole to the top in this matter. They always think that they are the ones who will be dishing out the Inquisitional torture on their favourite hate targets, and never contemplate the notion that instead, they stand a quantifiable probability of being on the receiving end.
Indeed, the entire ridiculous concept of “hell” was constructed specifically to give the requisite narcissists and borderline psychopaths something to masturbate over, while the power priesthood continued screwing them over, and gaslighting them with fake stories about their plight being grounded in imaginary malicious deeds by some convenient “other”.
The idiots who fall for this fraud, of course, are the sort who welcome with inhuman glee, the opportunity to punch down upon powerless and marginalised minorities, while sucking up to the genuine (rich and powerful) source of their misery.
“Magic Man did it”, along with “Magic Man wants this” have been almost perfect tools for political control for millennia, and have survived ultimately for that reason alone. They offer no genuine explanations for the world we live in, merely placebo pretences thereto, while clearing the path for a range of insidious cognitive and ethical poisons.
1 Like
It does seem that even @Sherlock-Holmes admits this himself, as he has asserted that something cannot be an explanation for itself. So describing the claim a deity created the universe, by his own admission is not, and 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 @Sherlock-Holmes own admission, before his claim that “a deity created the universe” can be described as an EXPLANATION of the origins of the universe.
@Sherlock-Holmes you have my undivided attention, enthral me. If you say you don’t know, then one assumes you will accept that as a rational reason to seek an alternative explanation, as that is what you have done after all, and the “explanations” science has for the origins of the universe, which though incomplete go far far further than a pithy and bare claim that something we can’t explain did it, using supernatural powers we can’t explain.
1 Like
Neither does “Its always existed” in that case.
So you’re implying both claims are equally specious then, so is your position biased and closed minded. or are you an atheist now?
FYI the universe exists as an objective fact, thus to posit it is possible it has always existed in some form doesn’t violate Occam’s razor. Unlike your claim a deity created the universe of course, since you can’t offer any explanation for this:
Since @Sherlock-Holmes you admit something cannot be an explanation for itself. So describing 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,
2 Likes
First, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems effectively set a stop to the search for a set of axioms on which to build the rest of mathematics that would allow proving or disproving absolutely all mathematical formulas or statements. As for concrete of examples of mathematical statements that are provable unprovable, see the example section of the wikipedia entry.
There is, however, another problem that is highly analogous to the incompleteness problem, and that is the halting problem, which tells us that it is impossible to write a computer program to determine whether another program will halt or run forever. This has huge implications for the theory of computability.
For a layman’s introduction to the incompleteness theorems and the related halting problem I highly recommend the book Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. It’s quite an interesting read.
1 Like
Thank you, much appreciated.
You still haven’t explained what you think the relevance of that is to my post?
1 Like
Which post of yours are you talking about?
The only one I quoted in that post?
I have made my only post quoted larger as you’re struggling to see one single post, and use the links between your response and my post.
Now, can you explain what you think the relevance of your post is to my post?
FYI the upward pointing arrows on the RH are links to the posts quoted. 
I have no idea what your going on about mate. You posted this:
I asked which post exactly are you referring to by “…to my post”, you’ve made a huge number of posts in this thread, which one are you referring to? either tell or I’m done here.
I have told you twice, I have quoted the post twice, I have linked the post twice, you quoted it yourself a second time there???
Here it is again then, with your response:
Now one more time, what is the relevance of your response to my post? I can’t make it any larger, have linked it 3 times, with your response for context each time, also linked 3 times.
Four times of asking?..
I know, so fatiguing, you can stop now, please stop…
Not remotely fatiguing, so I ask again.
So what is the relevance of your response to my post? 5 times…it appears this is yet another specious claim you can’t justify at all.
1 Like
Except that “it’s always existed” is far more likely to be a reasonable claim for something that we know exists courtesy of evidence, than "a fantastic magic entity that’s only ever been asserted to exist was responsible ".
You really are an amateur at this, aren’t you?
4 Likes
Wow wow, wait a minute, are you saying that something we know is possible, is a more plausible thing to assert exists than something we don’t know is possible?
Blimey this is news…well only to some theists and @Sherlock-Holmes of course.
1 Like