Are Religious Explanations Always Facile?

[Polymath257]

If the world wasn't created, yet it came into existence, then theoretically it must have been eternal or self-creating, I think.
There is no other option, as I see it.

The problem is that time is part of the world (your definition of world).

The phrase 'come into existence' implies a process involving time, which means that it has to be *within the world*.

So, here are some options, assuming a one-dimensional time.

1. Time is infinite into the past.
2. Time is cyclic.
3. Time is finite into the past.

You don't consider the second possibility. it looks like you identify the first as 'eternal' and the last as 'self-created'. I would dispute the terminology in the last. It is NOT self-created. It is simply existing.

Another aspect of this is that time is part of the geometry of spacetime. It is NOT universal and absolute any more than latitude and longitude are absolutes on a sphere.

One modern view is that space and time *together* constitute the 'world' and that this world 'simply exists'. Causality happens *within* the world, not outside of it. Time happens *within* the world, not outside of it. So to even ask about the the cause of the world is like asking what is north of the north pole: it makes no sense.

 

[Polymath257]

if you say the world is probably not created by a God or any other higher force... this is identical to saying it's probably an uncreated world.
This is logic, in my opinion.
"uncreated" is another term for not created.
Right?

Uncreated and uncaused are different notions, though. Uncreated means there is no intelligent agent involved in the cause. it is quite possible to be caused, but not created.

It is also quite possible to be uncaused. Again, causality only makes sense in the context of time and time is part of the world. So causality only makes sense *within* the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One modern view is that space and time *together* constitute the 'world' and that this world 'simply exists'. Causality happens *within* the world, not outside of it. Time happens *within* the world, not outside of it. So to even ask about the the cause of the world is like asking what is north of the north pole: it makes no sense.

It is not a view as observed. It is cognitive and in the brains of those who think it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if you say the world is probably not created by a God or any other higher force... this is identical to saying it's probably an uncreated world.
This is logic, in my opinion.
"uncreated" is another term for not created.
Right?

How likely is it that ANYTHING was created by an entity whose existance is indistinguishable from sheer fantasy and non-existing things?

Well.... not very.

Do ghosts exist? Probably not.
When I'm in my bed, I hear noises in the attic. Is it a poltergeist? Probably not.


Exact same thing.


And no, it's not the same thing as saying it is "uncreated". That would assume that "god" is the only possible creation cause. This fails miserably as an assumption.

First, because you haven't even BEGUN to demonstrate that it is even a possibility in the first place. You have event BEGUN to demonstrate, or even only support, such entities exist.

Second, it's yet another testament to your lack of imagination.

The origins of the universe are unknown.

And any wild extra-ordinary claim backed by exactly ZERO evidence, is unlikely by definition.

Evidence (amount and quality thereof), is what makes things likely.

Trump's claims about election fraud are very likely not correct.
Why? Not because it's Trump who says it. But simply because there is zero evidence to support it.


EVIDENCE is what makes things likely / probable.
The lack of evidence is what makes things unlikely / improbable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Uncreated and uncaused are different notions, though. Uncreated means there is no intelligent agent involved in the cause. it is quite possible to be caused, but not created.

It is also quite possible to be uncaused. Again, causality only makes sense in the context of time and time is part of the world. So causality only makes sense *within* the world.

That is subjective and not independent of the mind.

 

[epronovost]

Well, if the world was not created, the wealth of potential positions and explanation boils down to an uncreated world.
If the world wasn't created, yet it came into existence, then theoretically it must have been eternal or self-creating, I think.
There is no other option, as I see it.

And that's precisely why such reduction is facile and overly simplistic. There is a mountain of differences within those three categories on the how precisely and what precisely cosmogenesis happened and is. I personnaly consider a congent discussion on the subject to be well above my abilities. I can only discuss relatively simple, vulgarised and caricatural versions of it and it seems to be the same for you.

 

[Polymath257]

really? Oh, I though it was evident.
In my opinion, there are solely three options theoretically:
1. the world was created
2. it is eternal
3. it popped up by itself.

There is no fourth choice, as I see it. I don't mean just this universe, I mean the universe and potential other universes before or after.

when Dawkins says: option 1 is "probably wrong" then there needs to be option 2 or 3 that is somehow more "probable", in Dawkins' view.
To me, this is logic. Am I wrong here?

Let's put it this way,

1. Time is infinite into the past.
2. Time is finite into the past.
3. Time is cyclic.

It looks like you reject 3 without comment. Then, you *assume* that the second breaks down into
2a. The world was created
2b. The world 'popped up by itself'.

There are some issues here.

First, there is a difference between 'created' and 'caused'. it is quite possible to be 'caused' and not 'created'. So, 2a actually breaks down further:

2aa: the universe is created by an intelligence
2ab: the universe was caused, but not by an intelligence
2ac: the universe was not caused.

The problem with both 2aa and 2ab is that this requires a cause outside of the world. if the world is all that exists, that is nonsense.

In 2b, you seem to suggest that the universe is creating itself. Since causality requires time, that ultimately implies a cyclic version of time.

In all, you still need to deal with the fact that your argument is describing events *in time*. You need to deal with the fact that time is part of the world, NOT something external to it.

 

[thomas t]

Don't compare me to Trump. Can we leave that one out here?

If they establish an age of the universe, this means something, I think.

That would assume that "god" is the only possible creation cause. This fails miserably as an assumption.

I did not assume this.
I said "created". By whomever, it could be some higher force, at this point of the debate.
In my opinion, when Dawkins says "God", he means any higher force.
God, as far as I understand him, is a place holder for just anything "higher". He's against religion. That was what his point was about, in the video.
This includes religions that postulate any higher force... even the ones that dod not postulate a God.
He's an atheist (and he's not the typical agnostic).

And no, it's not the same thing as saying it is "uncreated".

so you're saying "not created" is not the same thing as "uncreated".
Tell me: where is the difference?

First, because you haven't even BEGUN to demonstrate that it is even a possibility in the first place. You have event BEGUN to demonstrate, or even only support, such entities exist.

Let's get one thing straight: Dawkins came up with the notion that there is probably no God. So, he's the one the onus is on.
Not me, I think.

The origins of the universe are unknown.

Dawkins says he excludes by a certain probability that it was created by a God, so he makes an assertion about origins.

So when and how and by whom was it established that the multi-verse actually exists?

I wasn't talking about the existent multiverse.
I said universe + potential other universes.

 

[Windwalker]

Richard Dawkins describes explanations that religions can provide as flat-out facile while he believes science is with him.

Granted, the Sun God coming with his chariot and lighting the day every morning… is a bit facile.

You always address these threads to "atheists", as if atheists are the only ones who accept science. Why is that? You know there are plenty of other in all religions, who believe in or have faith in God, yet accept what science tells us about the origins of the world, Christians included?

I think the Genesis story of the Creation is quite beautiful, powerful, and truthful in its presentation. I do not however interpret that as a replacement or a competition with a true scientific explanation, which is of a completely different order than the Genesis story is.

To attempt to say that "God said let it be so", is a scientific explanation, is as you pointed out correctly in the example of the sun in the chariot, a facile explanation. It does not say anything scientific at all. It fails to explain the how of anything, the mechanisms, the ways in which things take the shapes they have. Science does that, not the Bible.

Now, I know you'll probably respond saying "That's my opinion that it does", which you typically do in response to challenges like this. But that is not supporting or justifying why you do, nor does it explain why you start a thread in a debate forum if you aren't actually going to debate or support your views or challenges to others. Please don't respond like that in your response to me.

 

[ameyAtmA]

really? Oh, I though it was evident.
In my opinion, there are solely three options theoretically:
1. the world was created
2. it is eternal
3. it popped up by itself.

There is no fourth choice, as I see it. I don't mean just this universe, I mean the universe and potential other universes before or after.

when Dawkins says: option 1 is "probably wrong" then there needs to be option 2 or 3 that is somehow more "probable", in Dawkins' view.
To me, this is logic. Am I wrong here?

4th choice :

4. God BECAME-BECOMES the universe by a 1/4th of Himself and although the Being is eternal, the BECOMING is cyclic. Note the subtle difference between cyclic and eternal. Cycle = manifest and un-manifest, rest prepare and manifest.
Again -- that is not to be taken simplistically as all or nothing all at once, but the process can be rather
- nested
- recursive
- multi-leveled
- multi-layered.
- continuous
- parallel
- multi-dimensional

Spoiler: For the curious seeker

---------------

Hinduism says that creation and transformation is always happening at each level from the macro to micro.
Not only this, the spiritual truth is multi-leveled and multi-layered and kaleidoscopic. So depending on where one is, they will see it more or less clearly.

At the highest level one sees that all is a derivative of God alone, and hence advaita jnAna sees the innermost, purest, the most original Spirit behind, pervading and beyond all existence as none but God (Brahman')

At least the "appointed" gods in Hinduism are parts and aspects of God and are actually positions in duty. Some have this knowledge and some don't but they are more likely to have it in higher degrees than us. In the next cycle you will have a different Indra , Surya, Prajapati and BramhAA just as you elect a new President.

Each universe or galaxy has its own set of god-positions, own little solar systems, ecosystems, macro-systems and microsystems.

They tire selflessly to together hold this fort called Uni-multi-verse.

"They" is accurate and inaccurate depending on the spiritual understanding -- ultimately there is no "They" - there is One alone.

As for the Sun's chariot -- it's poetry, and not a material chariot, (although mystical chariots have been ridden) but
- Sun-god is the spirit behind and within our Sun
-- who is the center of our Solar system
-- whose innermost Spirit is ParamAtmA (God pervading all),
-- without the selfless spirit of the Sun, driven internally by ParamAtmA (God pervadind all), we on earth would not exist or thrive.

It does not mean Sun is a universal god, but has been heavily used to explain the all-pervading God symbolically - just as the Sun is always seen above head in the noon sky as you travel N miles away, and rays of the Sun pervade our space and can be seen everywhere, so also, behind the scene, ParamAtmA VishNu is always there and pervades all existence (1/4th) and beyond (3/4th)


A mystic or jnAni who sees nothing and no one but God.

God is the innermost being pervading all existence in addition to being many other things - this is the Hindu thought at least.
So as long as one sees each entity in full knowledge - as God being the innermost Being and source of that entity, that is fine.

------------
A suggested exercise for the curious :

Go out - preferably in an open space (if you can go to a height like a Nth floor terrace or hill nothing like it), in the early morning. Watch the rising or just-risen Sun in the sky, trees, grass. Do they talk to you? Does the nature talk to you?

Do this at late-evening when the sky is very bright but not scorching. Do you feel a part of the sky?

Now go in. Not inside the house, inside you.

Eventually ParamAtmA will talk to you.

 

[thomas t]

You always address these threads to "atheists", as if atheists are the only ones who accept science. Why is that?

the atheists are the group to whom young Christians turn to. At least in environment.
So, I'm interested in learning how they think and feel.

 

[ChristineM]

if you say the world is probably not created by a God or any other higher force... this is identical to saying it's probably an uncreated world.
This is logic, in my opinion.
"uncreated" is another term for not created.
Right?

No, you appear to forget accretion

 

[sojourner]

In this video (minute 1:31:58 )

,

Richard Dawkins describes explanations that religions can provide as flat-out facile while he believes science is with him.

Granted, the Sun God coming with his chariot and lighting the day every morning… is a bit facile.

However, when Richard Dawkins says there is “probably” no God, see Atheist Bus Campaign - Wikipedia, how much less facile do you think this really is?

When he denies the creator proposition, he automatically favors the other option according to which the world* must be eternal in case he doesn’t want to embrace the idea of a self-popping-up world.

An eternal world or the Sun God…. what is less evidenced or more facile?

I personally hold that both is equally facile.

* By "world" I mean not only this universe but all the potential universes that purportedly existed before, too.

I don’t think the image of the sun god is facile. What is facile is explaining the image away as “myth,” when the one using that term doesn’t fully understand what it means in either literary or theological terms.

Yes, the image of the sun god is facile of one is seeking a scientific understanding of what the sun is and why it appears to “come up” in the morning. However, if one is seeking to make meaning of the heavenly body and that event, if one is seeking a theological understanding of why the sun and its morning arrival can help us foster a sense of beauty and spiritual relationship with the world, then myth is a fundamental and important tool. In that case, myth is not so facile when one considers its role in spiritual development and understanding. Storytelling brings an otherwise distant or objective event into the personal and subjective, which is developmentally crucial to human cognitive and emotional development.

I generally tend to agree with Dawkins, but I think he has a religious chip on his shoulder and is grandstanding a bit in order to sell books and video. Science and spirituality do not supplant each other, rather, they temper each other.

 

[sojourner]

4, 5, 6... 27... 32...

There are many hypothesis and so there are many choices. As far as i am aware only 2 (*3*) suggest a universe from nothing.

*3* as i understand it the bible claims god did his creation trick from nothing. Or perhaps the religious meaning of "void" differs from the accepted definition.

Creation ex nihilo is not indicated by the biblical creation myths.

 

[sojourner]

An eternal universe is much more likely then an eternal god, for the simple reason that at least we know for a fact that the universe exists

I disagree, for we know from all the scientific knowledge we have that entropy increases, and shall increase until the universe loses its cohesion. Stars will burn out, go nova, with no matter cohesive enough to replace them.

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree, for we know from all the scientific knowledge we have that entropy increases, and shall increase until the universe loses its cohesion. Stars will burn out, go nova, with no matter cohesive enough to replace them.

Except that entropy is a statistical thing, not a fundamental thing. There is the notion of a Poincare recurrence time, in which entropy does NOT always increase, but in fact, the system returns to its original state (or, at least very close to it).

Now, the Poincare recurrence time is *very* long. But in a situation with infinite time, it is inevitable.

 

[ChristineM]

Creation ex nihilo is not indicated by the biblical creation myths.

Remind me to rewrite the definition of void

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't compare me to Trump. Can we leave that one out here?

???
I didn't compare you with Trump. I illustrated what makes things "likely" and "unlikely" and how we establish such evaluations.

If they establish an age of the universe, this means something, I think.

The age of the expansion of the universe. You seem to have missed that part.

I did not assume this.
I said "created". By whomever, it could be some higher force, at this point of the debate.

What do you mean by "higher"?
How about just "a force"? Like how the force of gravity causes stars and planets to form.

In my opinion, when Dawkins says "God", he means any higher force.

He means by that word, whatever the theist he's talking to understands by that word.
To Dawkins personally, like with any other atheist I would expect - including myself, the word "god" is utterly meaningless.

God, as far as I understand him, is a place holder for just anything "higher". He's against religion. That was what his point was about, in the video.
This includes religions that postulate any higher force... even the ones that dod not postulate a God.
He's an atheist (and he's not the typical agnostic).

Can I ask, why this focus on Dawkins? What makes him so special to you?
And most of all, why even care what he has to say when it comes to the very frontier of scientific knowledge in fields like cosmology and stuff? It's not like that's his area of expertise...

For "atheist scientist" views on such, you might be better of looking into what guys like Lawrence Krauss have to say about the matter.

But anyhow.... not really sure why you seem to think that what Dawkins' opinions are on this matter is so important.

In fact, I seem to remember that Dawkins said on multiple occasions that he doesn't feel comfortable at all talking about this stuff because of his lack of knowledge concerning the field.

He's not actually addressing hypothesis of cosmology. Instead, he's addressing religious claims and finding them insufficiently supported. So insufficiently supported that we can conclude that they are probably not correct.

so you're saying "not created" is not the same thing as "uncreated".
Tell me: where is the difference?

Not clear on my part.
What I mean is that you are using loaded terminology.
@Polymath257 expressed it better by making a distinction between "(un)created" and "(un)caused".

"created" loads it up with agency.

Let's get one thing straight: Dawkins came up with the notion that there is probably no God. So, he's the one the onus is on. Not me, I think.

Which is a response to the claim that there is a god.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim. Failing to meet that burden, renders the claim unlikely to be true.

Dawkins says he excludes by a certain probability that it was created by a God, so he makes an assertion about origins.

No. He responds to an assertion about origins.

I wasn't talking about the existent multiverse.
I said universe + potential other universes.

That makes it even worse.

So you are positing undemonstrable entities as the creators of undemonstrable universes?



Might as well say that extra-dimensional undetectable dragons hunt and eat undetectable unicorns.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree, for we know from all the scientific knowledge we have that entropy increases, and shall increase until the universe loses its cohesion. Stars will burn out, go nova, with no matter cohesive enough to replace them.

And for all we know all the scientific knowledge we have, no supernatural things exist.

pssssst: entropy = a thing that happens in the expanding universe. Just like @thomas t you are talking about stuff that happens in the expanding space-time continuum. The start of the expansion is not necessarily the same as the start of the universe itself. For all we know, "the universe" existed eternally and simply "changed states" 13.7 billion years ago into an expanding space-time.

There is nothing to contradict this. We simply do not know.


The point you guys are trying to make, looks like trying to fight a war with action figures.

 

[Windwalker]

the atheists are the group to whom young Christians turn to. At least in environment.
So, I'm interested in learning how they think and feel.

You did not really address the meat of my post to you. But regarding this point here, do you think that maybe the reason that young Christians, such as yourself, wrestle between faith and atheism is maybe, perhaps because they are given no alternative between the two?

When given the choice to deny science, or believe in God, I think those Christians are creating that problem for themselves. They are saying, they are telling their followers, in order to believe in God, you must deny or at least reject parts of science you don't like.

Maybe instead, try not fighting against science, but maybe try to understand your own faith in light of what knowledge science brings to us? That would get rid of such a black and white, and completely unnecessary choice between faith and reason.

Certainly, there are plenty of Christians out there who are able to do this. A fair number of them on this site alone.

Your thoughts to that, and my other points from the other post, please?