EXPOSED: The "Divine Fallacy" is NOT Really Divine!

[LuisDantas]

Ok, i see......

To answer that, i first got to tell you how i define God.

An eternal, as in has no begining, conscious, intelligence. Infinate energy, as in not confined to space and time.

Also, this God is the ultimate SOURCE.

So, it would be 1 God.

However, from this 1 God, there is no problem for me to believe he could make a bunch of little gods, smaller mimics of himself, but, these would have behinings, would be consigned to time and space, would have a source.

For all I know, that may be correct, although I find it lacking in actual meaning and in descritive power even if true.

Ultimately, we have no way of telling whether there is any truth to that.

 

[Jollybear]

How do you explain a sunny day to a deaf and blind person?

Lol, i suppose you cant. But, this first assumes im intellectually blind.

Which MAY be the case, but may not.

Math not being my cup of tea does not perse make me "blind".

Lets try it, explain to me the best you can. Translate all that math for me into the language of philosophy.

 

[Jollybear]

Determining the quantity by defining it to be a particular number?
That is one powerful tool.

So, what i said made sense then?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, what i said made sense then?

I understand what you did.
But I reject the method.

 

[Jollybear]

For all I know, that may be correct, although I find it lacking in actual meaning and in descritive power even if true.

Ultimately, we have no way of telling whether there is any truth to that.

Well, theres ultimately 3 views of the universe. 3 views. After you break down all the ephamisms, the elaborate descriptions, rehashes, ect. Theres just 3 views. There is variations WITHIN the 3 views, but, there are only 3 views.

Its real simple. Its like this:

The universe was always here in one form or another. No begining.

Or, it had a begining, which came from nothing and by chance made everything over much time.

Or, an eternal, concious, intelligence made the universe.

Now, some views may blend a combination. Thats also a varation.

But, as you can see, theres really just 3 views. I take obviously the view of an eternal concious intelligent energy made it all.

But, despite that, theres only possibly 3 views.

 

[Jollybear]

I understand what you did.
But I reject the method.

What method do you want me to do?

 

[Revoltingest]

What method do you want me to do?

Tis not for me to steer you away from your approach to things philosophical & religious.

 

[ChristineM]

Lol, i suppose you cant. But, this first assumes im intellectually blind.

Which MAY be the case, but may not.

Math not being my cup of tea does not perse make me "blind".

Lets try it, explain to me the best you can. Translate all that math for me into the language of philosophy.

Philosophy to me is as maths is to you.

But put simply, in the quantum world it is feasible to get a universe from nothing.

Within the nothing of a quantum bubble virtual particles spontaneously form and annihilate themselves. If the particles formed and were far enough apart not to annihilate they would exponentially multiply and continue to exponentially multiply to form a universe

 

[Jollybear]

Tis not for me to steer you away from your approach to things philosophical & religious.

Well, your not really ordering me to do another method, youd just be letting me know the other method you prefer. After i know it, then i can let you know IF im able or not to meet the method.

 

[Jollybear]

Philosophy to me is as maths is to you.

But put simply, in the quantum world it is feasible to get a universe from nothing.

Within the nothing of a quantum bubble virtual particles spontaneously form and annihilate themselves. If the particles formed and were far enough apart not to annihilate they would exponentially multiply and continue to exponentially multiply to form a universe

Ok....so....."spontaniously" form.

One of the definitions of spontaneously is "without apparent (or understood) external cause or stimulus"

So, are the particles TRUELY coming from "nothing"? Or is there a real cause for them to pop into being?

It appears its assumed there poping from nothing because its not apparent or understood, the cause.

So, to term it, spontanious is just a way of describing a phenomenon thats not understood.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here's the problem: It seems to me that one of two seemingly impossible things must be true. Either there is something that never didn't exist, that is, whose history goes back in time infinitely, as if it has already crossed an infinite expanse of time to get to now, or there once was nothing, and then, something ... Both of those ideas seem beyond counterintuitive ... Yet, it seems to me, that because there is something rather than nothing, one off these things must be the case ... Given what I have presented, it seems to me that one cannot look at only one of these two ideas in isolation, reject it because it is counterintuitive, and think that one has ruled something out. If you don't consider that what you are left with thereafter is no less "impossible" than what you have rejected, your analysis is incomplete.

The best way to approach such issues is to have no desire that they
be one way or the other, & to be comfortable with not knowing.

Agree. I hope you didn't think that I thought otherwise, or that my purpose was to resolve that issue. It was merely to point out that an argument that looks at only one of those possibilities and rules it out for being seemingly impossible is not a valid argument. Both possibilities must be considered simultaneously, which prevents either from being ruled out, since they form a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive set (MECE), which, if correct, forces us to conclude that at least one but not both of these possibilities is the case.

Its to me simply one or the other. Something from nothing, or something is eternal. There is no third. There cannot be a third, its impossible.

Agree. The issue cannot be resolved at this time, and potentially may never be resolved.

How do you explain a sunny day to a deaf and blind person?

Braille?

You reminded me of a Grateful Dead lyric: "You may be weak or you may be blind, but even a blind man knows when the sun is shining"

You dont believe any God of any sort created the universe right? Now you say you dont know.

Those are not mutually exclusive ideas. They define what is often called the agnostic atheist - a person who is unable to rule gods in or out and therefore admits that he doesn't have an answer to the god question, but being a rational skeptic, does not believe what is not sufficiently supported by evidence.

But, by believing no God did it, you indirectly believe either something from nothing OR that energy is eternal and was not intelligent energy (e.g. God).

Believing that no god was involved is different from not believing that one was. That is, believing not is not the same as not believing.

Consider the matter of trust in another person. Initially, we might have no reason to either trust or distrust the person. We are agnostic, and so we don't assume that such a person is trustworthy, nor that he is not. Perhaps with time, we come to learn that this person is not trustworthy. We still don't trust them, but now we distrust them - something not true before. We have crossed over from merely not believing to positively believing not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

speculative meaning you are open to the posibility that God created it?

I am. Of course, mere possibility is not suffiicient to justify belief.

Does something from nothing seem absurd?

Yes, but no less so than something having always existed infinitely far back into time.

So, an eternal conscious, intelligent energy (without giving it a name) sounds absurd, but something from nothing just sounds counter-intuitive?

They seem equally problematic to me.

Well, theres ultimately 3 views of the universe. 3 views. After you break down all the euphemisms, the elaborate descriptions, rehashes, etc. There are just 3 views. There are variations WITHIN the 3 views, but, there are only 3 views.The universe was always here in one form or another. No begining. Or, it had a begining, which came from nothing and by chance made everything over much time. Or, an eternal, concious, intelligence made the universe.

Well done. Here is how I have formulated that in the past, your three categories crossed with the two counterintuitive alternatives:

Candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok....so....."spontaniously" form.

One of the definitions of spontaneously is "without apparent (or understood) external cause or stimulus"

So, are the particles TRUELY coming from "nothing"? Or is there a real cause for them to pop into being?

It appears its assumed there poping from nothing because its not apparent or understood, the cause.

So, to term it, spontanious is just a way of describing a phenomenon thats not understood.

In QM, spontaneous creation of particles is quite well understood and observed, remember, you are not dealing with classical physics. They come from nothing

But it was predictable that you would offer an objection based on ignorance of the subject

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, your not really ordering me to do another method, youd just be letting me know the other method you prefer. After i know it, then i can let you know IF im able or not to meet the method.

I suspect you already use my methods in some contexts.
Lack of evidence is why you reject Islam & Scientology.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, theres ultimately 3 views of the universe. 3 views. After you break down all the ephamisms, the elaborate descriptions, rehashes, ect. Theres just 3 views. There is variations WITHIN the 3 views, but, there are only 3 views.

Its real simple. Its like this:

The universe was always here in one form or another. No begining.

Or, it had a begining, which came from nothing and by chance made everything over much time.

Or, an eternal, concious, intelligence made the universe.

Now, some views may blend a combination. Thats also a varation.

But, as you can see, theres really just 3 views. I take obviously the view of an eternal concious intelligent energy made it all.

But, despite that, theres only possibly 3 views.

Depending on what you call "the universe", I am fairly certain that there are more possibilities.

 

[crossfire]

What do you mean by nothing? Nothing with dimensions through which particles can pass? Nothing in the form of a vacuum bubble which particles can form? Or absolute nothing which is impossible in this universe but may not be impossible elsewhere, if there is an elsewhere.

Take your pick. If something comes from it, then we can conclude it is an unstable state.

 

[Curious George]

Is it incredulous to state that the "blue" and the "green" here are the exact same color? Can you believe it? Are you willing to investigate the possiblity?

View attachment 25947

They look the same to me unless i scroll up quickly.

 

[Jollybear]

Believing that no god was involved is different from not believing that one was. That is, believing not is not the same as not believing.

Say what? I read that about 7 times, that twisted my brain to pieces trying to figure that out. Break that down more?

Consider the matter of trust in another person. Initially, we might have no reason to either trust or distrust the person. We are agnostic, and so we don't assume that such a person is trustworthy, nor that he is not. Perhaps with time, we come to learn that this person is not trustworthy. We still don't trust them, but now we distrust them - something not true before. We have crossed over from merely not believing to positively believing not.

So, theres trust, distrust and undecided?

 

[Jollybear]

I am. Of course, mere possibility is not suffiicient to justify belief.



Yes, but no less so than something having always existed infinitely far back into time.



They seem equally problematic to me.



Well done. Here is how I have formulated that in the past, your three categories crossed with the two counterintuitive alternatives:

Candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

Yes, thats a good breakdown. The reason i put it into a 3 fold breakdown is due to the view that it can be a combination, such as your further breakdown.

But, im wondering why the God view is equally problematic to you as the other ones?

 

[Jollybear]

In QM, spontaneous creation of particles is quite well understood and observed, remember, you are not dealing with classical physics. They come from nothing

How do they know its coming from nothing rather then something they dont understand?

But it was predictable that you would offer an objection based on ignorance of the subject

Im sure it was.