The God

Posted on by

So the universe isn’t a simulation created by a Mind in its mom’s basement. Shame. I thought Don was onto something there.

Let’s consider then another option. The universe, reality and we ourselves were made by a super-being, a God no less. How would that work?

The God looked round. There was nothing, only himself. He did not know for sure that he was a he because he had no Y chromosome or a penis. He hadn’t invented either yet and as an eternal being he had no need of such things. Heavens above, he didn’t even drink or eat so didn’t need dual purpose genitals, not even for urination. He did plan however to create, eventually, when billions of years had past, a sentient being who would have a Y chromosome and a penis. He intended calling this being A Man. This Man would be inherently male so it seemed only right that he, God, should identify as male too.

Damn, he’d digressed again. Where was he? He realised for the billion billionth time (though it was hard to count when time didn’t yet exist and even if it did he’d be outside it) he was nowhere amidst nothing and hadn’t created anything yet. It was time, bearing in mind no time existed, to create the universe, a reality outside of himself.

He looked round again. He was, he had to admit, a bit stuck. There was nothing around with which to create anything; no quarks, no gravity, elements or even Lego; none of the fundamental forces of the universe. There were no fundamental forces because there was no universe. He was going to have to create these things before he could even think about creating a universe. But how? He looked around for something with which to make the quantum realm and gravity and elements and all the other stuff from; but there was nothing. Even as God he was constrained by the principle that something cannot come from nothing. This was a truth universally acknowledged even if there wasn’t yet a universe.

What to do? Could he make a universe from himself, from his own essence as it were? But if he did, would that not diminish him in some way, make him less of a God? A God with a universe-shaped hole in his middle? He didn’t much like the idea of that. It really wouldn’t work.

Could he, he wondered, zap things into existence with just a word? But wouldn’t that be the same as making something from nothing? As such it couldn’t be done. In the far, far future those who believed in him would insist that something could not come from nothing in their arguments with those who doubted his existence. He couldn’t flout the rule and make his acolytes look foolish.

He decided he would have to abandon the whole project. He’d had such plans too, of making his Man and then destroying his descendants in a flood and every other way imaginable until he could send his other Big Idea down to rescue them with special magic. ‘Shit,’ God thought, though that didn’t exist either: ‘I’ll just have to get used to being here all alone with my Big Ideas, surrounded by all this nothing instead of something.’

God’s conundrum demonstrates that it is logically impossible that a God created the universe. Apparently, something cannot be made from nothing, even by a god.

106 thoughts on “The God”

  1. My faith suffered death by a thousand cuts. One of those cuts was that I realized a perfect god could not be a creator god.

    A perfect being, god or not, can have no needs nor wants. It is complete.

    A creator god, by contrast, must have some desire or need to create and is therefore incomplete, imperfect.

    If the apologist says that it is God’s nature to create, then God is not sovereign — his nature, or innate need to create, is master over him.

    Bible God, and the many versions his followers have made from him, is an illogical, incoherent mess. Thank the gods he doesn’t exist!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  2. Neil, your comment to Don on the other thread about god being Allah and jehova at the same time with the war going on, and god supporting BOTH sides got me thinking about this post:

    God created a universe.. then, he’s so bored he had to create his own enemy…satan.

    It’s so illogical!

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • God did not create an enemy. He created a powerful and beautiful being with every privilege including that of freely revering God his creator and enjoying God’s favor. But with such freedom comes the possibility of disaster in choosing otherwise. In choosing to elevate himself above God. (Does that sound familiar? We see it played out everywhere around us.) In doing so Satan sealed his own fate. Egocentrism always destroys the one who believes himself the center of it all. And in so doing it destroys everything it touches. And so it has.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • You are soooo indoctrinated, Don! It’s almost laughable to read how you attempt to “explain” things using stories from a book that is over 2000 years old and CANNOT be validated, no matter how many believers try to explain and substantiate its stories.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I do not think so. But he did know the possibility.

        I’ve discussed the foreknowledge of God before. The short explanation is that God is not limited in time. All time as we experience it is present for God. Therefore, there is no “before” of “after.” So, God knows as present, which encompasses all time. In that present God knows that Satan would rebel. But he knows it because Satan did rebel, not before. Remember, there is no before.

        In the same way he knows that Adam (mankind) rebels. But he knows it as his present not before it happened. There is no before with God.

        There are several exceptions. It is logical sequence rather than chronological sequence. That exceptions are the things God decreed, such as salvation and the Savior. God, however, did not decree Satan’s rebellion nor mankind’s.

        Like

      • Where does the Bible say God is ‘not limited in time’? Where is your evidence ‘he’ isn’t? You do know that the more attributes you add to your imaginary deity the less likely it is he exists? He goes from improbable to downright impossible.

        God: Probably not

        Oh, here’s another made up attribute for him: he has ‘foreknowledge’. This merely begs the question, why, if he knows everything in his own eternal present, he doesn’t step in in some mysterious way to prevent the worst from happening? Like the beheading of babies, for example. After all, according to Jesus he loves us, children in particular.

        The answer is not ‘because of free will.’ Free will isn’t in the Bible either. In any case, the free will exercised by Hamas terrorists certainly didn’t extend to their victims, did it.

        You have to tie yourself in illogical existentialist knots to defend your impossible God.

        Liked by 1 person

      • God knew before the creation of the world and mankind that all the horrors you describe would be possible – as well as all the good that men have done – but they were not necessary. It is in that possible-but-not-necessary space that free will exists, and it is because of free will that God enjoins us to choose the good. If it was not for free will, why bother with a non-existent choice?

        Like

      • How do you know this? Who told you? Where is it written? Where is the evidence?

        ‘If it was not for free will, why bother with a non-existent choice?’
        I don’t know. Why not ask those deprived of choice by those who last weekend chose to murder them?

        Again, you make no sense. I too can highlight random phrases.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes. Which one? I cannot follow all the threads, so you need to give me a little more information about which topic you are referencing.

        Like

      • I asked how do you know.
        You said see my recent comment to Neil
        Rather than refer me to another comment it’s probably easier if you simply answer the question.

        Like

      • Well, this is a shot in the dark because I don’t know exactly which reply you are referring to. But my answers to Neil on several occasions were:

        1) How do I know what God is like?
        Answer: by observation of the creation plus reasoning and by revelation.

        2) How do I know someone is speaking what God told him?
        Answer: Fulfilled prophecy is the signature. Only God can do that with accuracy.
        Answer: The agreement of many different men as they report what God said to them.

        Like

      • Both of these replies are beliefs/ claims.
        Neither one is supported/ verified by evidence.

        To clarify.
        When you write ‘God’, am I correct in saying you are referring to the former genocidal Canaanite deity, Yahweh?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I continue to be astounded and amazed how Don blatantly tells us what “God” knows. But even more amazing is that he thinks such an entity actually exists and “talks” to him! If it were not for the millions or other who live in the same fairy-tale bubble, he would probably be committed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If I live a bit longer, the attitude of the powers that be will likely have evolved to be that I and others like me are dangerous to the public good. It is an old story, and will happen again. Who else to blame the burning of Rome on?

        Like

      • Don:
        “The short explanation is that God is not limited in time. All time as we experience it is present for God. Therefore, there is no “before” of “after.” So, God knows as present, which encompasses all time. In that present God knows that Satan would rebel. But he knows it because Satan did rebel, not before. Remember, there is no before.”

        I’ve read, and re-read this word salad and it makes absolutely no sense!

        Then, you say:
        “There are several exceptions. It is logical sequence rather than chronological sequence.”

        What?
        “Logical” comes from “logic”, meaning: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

        You are throwing out the strict principles of validity.

        As Neil and Nan say,
        “How do you know this about your god?

        Like

      • I’ve read, and re-read this word salad and it makes absolutely no sense!

        I didn’t expect it would. It requires thinking outside the box and beyond the conditions of this universe.

        You are throwing out the strict principles of validity.

        If there is no past or future chronologically then the only option for something to be “before” is in a logical sequence of priority or that which is most important rather than chronology. In other words, God decreed certain things as priorities that would govern his actions in time.

        God, knowing that the possibility was there for there to be rebellion, made it his priority to provide salvation and a Savior if and when it was needed. (It was not a necessity. That is why we say God is love and chooses love.)

        “How do you know this about your god?

        By revelation.

        We can know there is a God simply by observation of what is around us. Even bronze age goat herders can do that. It doesn’t require a degree in astrophysics.

        We can derive somethings about this God by reasoning from what we observe. (One thing that seems obvious to almost everyone today is that evil is destructive of people and societies and the people who embrace it. It does not take a rocket scientist or sociologist to know that. It does not take a philosopher to know that doing good is the cement of an enduring society.) But it does take revelation for us to know the ways and purpose of God. But it is there, given to men and women of the past. Raed.

        Like

      • As we established about a year ago, fulfilled ‘prophecy’ is all in the mind too. Unfulfilled ‘prophecy’ is conveniently forgotten about or is shoved, perpetually, into the indeterminate future.

        I repeat: demonstrate that revelation is not the same as imagining things in your own head.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I am sorry, WE did not establish anything like that, unless you are speaking with the magisterial “we”.

        I think at the time I present the prophecy inn Daniel that foretold the destruction of the temple and the city (Daniel 9:26) IT HAPPENED AS FORETOLD

        I mentioned lately the prophecy of Amos of the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel. IT HAPPENED AS FORETOLD

        I’ll add 2nd Kings where Isaiah predicted the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. (2nd Kings 20) IT HAPPENENED AS FORETOLD.

        But of course prophecy is impossible right? So these are all fakes, right?

        I don’t know whether you see the craziness of that reasoning.

        Like

      • We’re not going down this road again. ‘We’ demonstrated to you how prophecy works, usually by being written after the event it ‘foresees’. That written before, such as Jesus’ prophecies about the arrival of the Son of Man, invariably remains unfulfilled. That you choose to ignore the evidence is up to you, but I won’t publish any further comments from you about the subject.

        Like

      • Don:
        “All time as we experience it is present for God. ”

        Let’s call this the “eternal now”.
        If this is true, it means:

        1. God cannot have a new thought.
        2. Before creation, the choices of every moral being were fixed.
        3. God could never change his mind.
        4. God sees every person in either heaven or hell.
        5. God is responsible for creating creatures that he knew would be liars, thieves, murderers, and rapists.

        Like

      • God does not know something until it actually happens in our time. He knows the possibility of it but not the actuality until it becomes actual. You are mixing our time up with God eternal present.

        Like

      • I didn’t realise your God was so severely limited. He’s not omniscient then in his eternal present.

        So how does he send prophetic messages – of the ‘this will happen in the future’ kind – into people’s heads when he has no more definitive knowledge of the future than we do?

        As we ask you repeatedly, where is your evidence for all this mumbo jumbo?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Omniscient is a theological construct. But if you read and were able to follow what I wrote, God does know all things BECAUSE they are all present to him.

        Evidence: Genesis 22:12.

        But this way of understanding answers a lot of questions theologically. BTW It was the way C.S. Lewis saw God’s omniscience.

        Like

      • What you wrote was this:
        God does not know something until it actually happens in our time. He knows the possibility of it but not the actuality until it becomes actual. You are mixing our time up with God eternal present.

        I understood this as far as it’s possible to understand gobbledegook. Now you’re saying, ‘God does know all things BECAUSE they are all present to him,’ flatly contradicting your earlier claim.

        Theology is such fun, isn’t it. You can make up whatever you want and don’t have to present any evidence for it at all. You’re really good at it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Now you’re saying, ‘God does know all things BECAUSE they are all present to him,’ flatly contradicting your earlier claim.

        Not at all. What I will do tomorrow is present for God, though not for me. God knows what I will do when I actually do it. But because it is still future for me, God could tell me what I will do tomorrow. I would think of it as prophecy.

        God knowing what happens as it happens rather than in advance (there is no advance or past for God) allows me the freedom to make choices that are not constrained by what I am “going to do” because that is not set in stone.

        But God being always present (due to his omnipresence) does mean that he knows all actual things. His wisdom means that he also knows all things possible. His omniscience also allows him to know what is impossible, such as round squares. But, of course, we know that too.

        You’re really good at it.”

        Thank you.

        Like

      • Don:
        “ God does not know something until it actually happens in our time.”

        Don:
        “ God does know all things BECAUSE they are all present to him.”

        Don:
        “ All time as we experience it is present for God. Therefore, there is no “before” of “after.”

        How are these NOT contradictory statements?

        Like

      • They are contradictory IF you read them from your position on the timeline. On that timeline the future has not happened yet. But even those who think about time in more sophisticated ways recognize that our time is not absolute and universal. It is possible to slow time the time we experience by traveling at the speed of light or close to it. In that case returning to earth time you will find that you are in the future and things have gone on without you.

        So, it is not surprising that this is not contradictory. Just not what we usually experience. So, IF you read them from God’s position it is not surprising that they do not contradict each other. I’ve tried to distinguish the two as I wrote.

        Like

      • I should have added that we can also see the past. Every time we look at the sun we are seeing the sun as it was 9 minutes ago. If we look at the stars we see them as they were many years ago. If we use a telescope and look farther into the universe we the universe as it was billions of years ago.

        Time is funny that way.

        Like

      • Don:
        “ What I will do tomorrow is present for God, though not for me. God knows what I will do when I actually do it.”

        So, as I said before…god already sees everyone in heaven or hell.

        You can’t escape the logic of what you’re trying to present here.

        Like

      • Yes, he does see everyone in heaven or hell. But he also sees the choices they made that determined their destinies AND he did not predetermine those choices. They were freely made with adequate knowledge of the direction they would lead. For most there were many signposts along the way and many opportunities to change course. And the freedom to do so. So, there will be no excuses.

        Like

      • Goyo:
        “4. God sees every person in either heaven or hell.”
        This is a comment I made on October 16…

        You, Don, replied:

        Don:
        October 17
        “None of that follows. You either didn’t read what I wrote or didn’t follow it.”

        Then, you wrote today:
        Don:
        October 20
        “Yes, he does see everyone in heaven or hell.”

        Will you admit you’re wrong?

        Like

      • The choice is ours? Not according to 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14:

        God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

        And Matthew 22: 14:
        Many are called, few are chosen.

        But of course you know better.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Time is funny. We can look back a billion years and more and see in our present what is happening a billion years ago. If it were possible, I could travel at the speed of light in the same track the earth takes around the sun and in a week and a half my time I would land on the earth one year after I left, earth time. So what time is absolute? Mine or earth’s? I don’t think any time is absolute. Time is relative – pretty much what Einstein said.

        So why is it surprising that for God, who is not limited to any time, all our time is present? So, yes, he knows who is in heaven or hell and beyond that eternity. But because he knows by experiencing heaven and hell in his present and in our future present of that judgment, he does not constrain or determine who has made the choices that resulted in that destiny. It remains your choice.

        Like

      • Don:
        “It is logical sequence rather than chronological sequence.”

        What is “logical sequence”, and how is it different than “chronological sequence”?

        Like

      • Don:
        “ “How do you know this about your god?
        By revelation.”

        Muhammad claimed revelation from Allah…Joseph Smith claimed revelation from god..
        What is your mechanism to determine whose revelation is true, or even if it’s a revelation from a god?

        Like

      • @goyo
        I think it’s against the rules to ask Indoctrinated theists like Don sensible, inciteful questions.
        It tends to either confuse them or upset them.
        Play nice ..
        😉

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Reply to Neil:

    13…God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. [added for context]14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2nd Thessalonians 2:13,14)

    I love this verse.

    Calvinist would undoubtedly read it as you seem to imply. Arminians a bit differently.

    They would ask to whom Paul wrote this? The answer is to a group of believers who had been both called and chosen and who believed (faith).

    So, they had chosen to believe in Jesus before Paul wrote to them.

    How so? By God’s determination? So that they had nothing to do with it? I don’t think so. Otherwise, their choosing is meaningless.

    But then there is “from the beginning.” Legitimately it is “from” for the preposition is ap’. But not before. Before the beginning God decreed salvation and a Savior (speaking of priority not chronology), and he decreed the means of salvation.

    So, God’s choosing is on what basis? Not his decree before time but his calling within time (verse 14 and Matt. 22:14). And on the basis of our response to his calling which is faith. Faith is our part. “Few are chosen” because God’s calling was not joined by their faith.

    What about the middle part, “in sanctification of the Spirit”? “In” is one of those double and triple duty prepositions. It can mean ” in, on, at, by, with.” Here I believe it means that salvation is made complete “by” or “with” the setting apart to holiness (sanctification) of the Spirit. Holiness is the direction salvation will take us.

    Why this reading and not Calvin’s? Because there are many other verses that elaborate on God’s calling and choosing (election). Taken together they do not separate our faith from God’s calling.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • My God, you had to work hard to get round that one. Unfortunately, 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14 is not an isolated incidence of the NT writers saying it’s God who does the choosing, not us. There’s Matt 22;14 which I referenced but you chose to ignore; Romans 8:28,29, which says that believers are ‘predestined’ to be saved; Romans 9; Ephesians 1:11; 1 Peter 1:1-2; etc, etc.

      What a nuisance that heathens know the magic book better than you do, eh Don?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • I did mention Matt. 22:14 along with the 14th verse of 2nd Thess. 2.

        RE: Romans 28,29,30. Often people bring their assumptions about calling, predestination, salvation et al. to these verses. So, let’s read without that prejudice – and include verse 30.

        (v.28) “…all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called [κλητοῖς without a definite article, not THE called.] according to his purpose [πρόθεσις or pro-thesis or pre determined conclusion of this process].

        To what are they called? With the context of both what precedes and follows in view, this is not about salvation but sanctification. It is about those who are already saints (v. 27) and who are called according to his purpose. That purpose is that they be “conformed to the image of his Son” (v. 29)

        (v. 29) “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [predetermine] to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

        That is the predetermined destination for all the saints. Being conformed to the image of his Son is what we call sanctification.

        The key word apropos to this discussion, however, is “foreknow”. What does “foreknow” mean? Simply it means to know in advance. But in advance of what?

        Well, in advance of calling the saints to holiness (sanctification), God knew who would believe and he destined them to sanctification.

        (v. 30) “Moreover [ de a mild adversative indicating a recap of what Paul has said. ] whom he did predestinate [to holiness], them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

        The list of “called” “justified” and “glorified” is the sequence of God’s acts in sanctification. They include calling to holiness, declaring them justified, and ultimately finishing the work in glorification. All are aorist indicatives expressing something that is viewed as completed or as good as done.

        Like

      • Addendum to what I said about “called” “justified” and “glorified”. The aorist tense is difficult to translate well in English. We must use the past tense, but the aorist really looks at things as completed even if they are not yet. So “called” may be considered completed for every believer, and it is. And justified (“made just”) may be considered completed even though it may not be completed yet, and “glorified” in eternity may be considered completed even though it is not yet.

        Like

      • ‘…(it) may be considered completed even though it may not be completed yet,’ It’s either completed or it isn’t. It can’t be completed while not completed yet. As usual you resort to pretzel ‘logic’ and theobabble.

        Liked by 1 person

      • So now you’re saying the Bible’s goddledegook is only properly understood by those with a knowledge of ancient Greek. I wonder how many Christians are aware of this and read their Bible on such a basis.

        You’ve yet to demonstrate that God exists, that he exists out of time in an ‘eternal present’ and that he exists outside of logic too (‘completed’ means not ‘completed’ but ‘not yet completed’.)

        How do you know this stuff? Oh, yes: through revelation (imagining things in your head) and ‘observation’ (which cannot possibly confirm your fantasist claims).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Don:
        “ So “called” may be considered completed for every believer, and it is. And justified (“made just”) may be considered completed even though it may not be completed yet, and “glorified” in eternity may be considered completed even though it is not yet.”

        Wow, another word salad that contradicts itself!
        Aren’t you tired of trying to put a round peg in a square hole?
        As you see, the bible CANNOT be made sense of…it contradicts itself at every turn.

        “Considered completed yet not completed”violates the Law of Identity.

        Like

    • @Don.
      Please correct me if I’m wrong.
      You feel you are pretty much 100% correct in your Christian beliefs and where you may err I imagine you consider that your god,Yahweh will set you right at some point along the road.
      Therefore why do you engage and what do hope to gain from endless back and forth with Christian deconverts who ( in my view as an atheist) have a far better understanding of the religion they have left, primarily because they are able to see it without the prerequisite faith that for you ( and once upon a time them also) underpins everything your worldview is built upon.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Ark:You feel you are pretty much 100% correct in your Christian beliefs and where you may err I imagine you consider that your god,Yahweh will set you right at some point along the road.

        I am always learning, Ark, and I have changed my views quite significantly over the last 30 yrs or so. But at the same time my core beliefs have been strengthened by my listening to others and my study.

        One example is my original belief in a recent creation. Over a period of time in the 90s I chewed on that and interacted with a number of scientists and read a number of books by people like Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Some I enjoyed very much. I also read Christians on the subject, both theologians and scientists.

        I came eventually to to think that God created by process, and I saw no contradiction in the Bible to an old creation by procxess.

        As to why I continue on this blog: I find that challenging my beliefs is a good thing for me. And who knows what else may come from it.

        Like

      • Can you remind us in which of Richard Dawkins’ books he says God created the world ‘by process’ and also, presumably, guided evolution? The Selfish Gene? The Blind Watchmaker? Unweaving The Rainbow? I’ve read them all, and others, but can’t seem to recall where it is.

        Like

      • I said that. Dawkins explained the process. Though he did go on to suggest that the process created the process. He would do well to stay with biology. I did like his computer simulations, though, didn’t you? My goodness, what he could do with AI these days.

        Like

      • So how did you reach the conclusion from what Dawkins said that the process was your God’s doing?

        Dawkins’ computer simulations, which are indeed remarkable, demonstrate convincingly that the process itself produces variations in organisms without any outside assistance/influence/interference.

        Like

      • Dawkins only described the evolutionary process related to living things. But even there in this limited sphere, his computer simulations implied that there was a mind that set the stage and conditions, so to speak, for the process to proceed. The computer did not do this all by itself one morning while Dawkins was shaving. It was programed.

        When you consider the larger picture, there had to be life, and that life had to have the characteristics of reproducing with modifications. Not a given in any sense of Dawkin’s’ scenario. So, he conveniently avoids it.

        Then there had to be an environment where life could exist and develop. That is not a given either. And those conditions had to exist and actually change over the early history of the earth to provide an environment for life to evolve in the way it did. That is not a given. And so on, back to the very fundamental composition of whatever was at the Big Bang. And before that there had to be natural laws that governed the chemical reactions and interactions of matter that caused a simple beginning to develop the particular kind of complexity that allowed for such a place as earth. That is too much for Dawkins scenario to explain.

        Like

      • This is the argument from incredulity again: ‘I can’t see how the right conditions could have arisen for life without there being a Mind to create them, therefore God.’

        Liked by 1 person

      • I thought you have said that you didn’t believe in God because of lack of evidence. Now since there is evidence, I take that as incredulity. But that is one of the reasons I don’t believe in Naturalism and a naturalistic origin of the universe. No evidence.

        Neither Naturalism nor Theism can really win the day on lack of evidence. So, unless Naturalism comes up with something, I’ll go with what I find to be convincing evidence for God and in particular, the Jewish-Christian God.

        Like

      • Here we go again.

        What evidence? You’ve offered your own ‘observations’ and incredulity, ‘revelation’, guided evolution and Israel. None of these is evidence.

        You dismiss naturalistic explanations for the start of the universe and life on Earth and suggest faith in a tribal deity is a far better bet. Your worldview is not founded on sand but on a complete void.

        Like

      • I haven’t heard of any that are more than speculation. Point me to one that has some real evidence behind it and a **consensus** of scientists in the field agreeing with the theory. I am not Anti science. I am Anti scientism.

        Like

      • What, so you can dismiss it out of hand again and proffer ancient folk tales instead? Sure, I’ll fall for that one more time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes folk tales. That’s all you’ve got.

        There are none so blind as those who will not see. This includes ‘Intelligent Design’ merchant Stephen Meyer as well as yourself.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s a pretty board statement. Do you have evidence/proof — beyond your “holy book”?

        Like

      • No Holy Book needed, Nan. The statement you linked to simply notes that there is no evidence for a natural origin of the universe. On the other hand, people have for eons looked up to the stars and been impressed with the handiwork of god. They may not have known his name, so they came up with many different names. But pure observation and deduction led them to the conclusion that some god was involved.

        As we have learned more about the cosmos and about simple things like DNA, that deduction still stands.

        Like

      • I referenced Stephen Meyer’s book Return of the God Hypothesis. I quote from Page339.

        “There is yet another reason to prefer theistic design as an explanation of fine tuning over exotic versions of naturalism that postulate a multiverse. In order to explain the origin of the finetuning in our universe, both inflationary cosmology and string theory (and version of the multiverse that combine them) posit universe-generating mechanism that themselves require prior unexplained fine tuning.”

        So, every naturalistic origin thus far posited has problems that are nowhere near solved. In fact, they raise further issues.

        Like

      • The universe is fine tuned? No, it isn’t. As far as we’re aware, only one planet out of billions is capable of supporting life. That’s not the ‘universe’, the infinite bulk of which is demonstrably not ‘fine-tuned’.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think you react not to how finely the universe is tuned, which many physicists recognize, but to the Tuner.

        We have very little knowledge of the incredibly vast reaches of the universe. We know of only a very few planets and though none appear to have life and most do not have the conditions necessary for life, we cannot make a general statement that only earth has those conditions or that only on earth is life to be found. I think you may be surprised.

        Like

      • Other headlines on this junk science site include ‘The Oldest Known Burial Site In The World Wasn’t Made By Our Species’, ‘Wild Experiment Reveals What Would Happen If You Touched a Quantum Superfluid’ and ‘In a Huge First, Mouse Embryos Have Been Grown In Space.’

        I kid you not.

        Like

      • You need to separate sensational headlines from the content. The content of the article I linked comes from legitimate scientists who wrote for a professional journal. They article was then made understandable to us peons by a science writer who is able to understand and translate the science ling for us.

        You may not have read to the end where the link to the article was. https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.095014

        I don’t follow the high level math in the article, so I appreciate someone who can make itr simple for me.

        Like

      • Don:
        I came eventually to to think that God created by process, and I saw no contradiction in the Bible to an old creation by procxess.”

        So after reading the Bible, you decided that god used the slow, clumsy, Rube-Goldberg process of evolution that had dinosaurs ruling the earth for millions of years, eventually culminating in mammals evolving into hominids, then into us?

        Sure, that’s what everyone thinks after reading the creation account in Genesis.

        Like

      • Don:
        “That is too much for Dawkins scenario to explain.”

        So, your scenario of your god creating everything explains it?

        Again, where did your god come from?

        This is circular!

        Like

  4. Goyo, Sure, that’s what everyone thinks after reading the creation account in Genesis.

    Of course not, but a significant and increasing number of Christians do. They do not see the creation account as a literal description but as a literary work in which God is set forth as the creator of all things.

    Evolution is not a straight-line process. But the end product is more important than how we get there.

    And in this case, the end product could not have been anticipated if evolution simply did its thing. Many species did not survive the process. And other species seem better suited to survive than mammals. Insects, for example. Insects not only survived but have been quite successful in evolutionary terms. So, why mammals and why humans?

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • “So, why mammals and why humans?”
      Why not?

      For every religious assertion,
      such as “God did it!”
      science has eventually provided a rational, naturalistic answer.
      Evolution is fact.There is no longer any
      debate among
      scientists. Meyer, for
      example, is a Creationist. His views are
      not taken seriously by the scientific
      community.

      While the origin of the universe is still unresolved there is a good case to be made that it always existed.

      When it comes to Christians, scientists don’t usually invite Yahweh to sit at the grown-ups table.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

    • Aren’t they? They’re certainly incompatible. A god is superfluous in evolution which operates quite nicely
      – if you can call a process that involves tons of sex, competition, death and extinction ‘nice’ – all on its own.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • Well done updating Paley’s pocket watch argument. However, no-one here is arguing that we do not have a creator. We do. It’s the long, slow process we call evolution.

        Richard Dawkins refers to evolution as ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ in his book of the same name. This is what we call a metaphor. Evidently you have still to read this particular book.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, it was the first book I read by Dawkins. It was not a bad description of evolution, but it failed to adequately address the improbability of that happening and ending up with us. He should have used his computers to compute that. But no problem, others have and it doesn’t look very good for evolution.

        I did find it interesting that Dawkins begins by saying that things look designed. At that we agree.

        Like

      • … it failed to adequately address the improbability of that happening and ending up with us. 

        For that you’ll need Climbing Mount Improbable.

        Nice to see the argument from incredulity making a welcome return.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Don:
        “ the improbability of that happening and ending up with us”

        What is that mathematical improbability and how did you calculate that?

        Like

    • @ Don
      He was/ is a proponent of ID.
      Yet after yammering on about this Intelligent designer( sic) he eventually wrote a book and came clean, announcing that this supposed designer was, in fact, the Christian god, Yahweh.
      He is a disingenious arsehat.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • Don:
      “But prior to working on its own, it was programed.”

      Programmed to circumcise its male hominids?

      Again, I ask:
      Why?

      Like

      Reply ↓

  6. goyo: What is that mathematical improbability and how did you calculate that?

    doncamp: I think Roger Penrose did that. You might check.

    And yet, as has been pointed out before, Penrose did not take those numbers and declare a natural universe “impossible.”

    Once again we see you are incapable of understanding what experts have to say. One of the many reasons it’s impossible to take you seriously, Don.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • Don:
      “I think Roger Penrose did that. You might check.”

      So you admit you’re just spouting bullshit that you don’t have any idea about.

      As koseighty points out, you are trying to use subjects that you are unfamiliar with to justify your unjustified belief that your god exists, and your ignorance is becoming embarrassing.

      Roger Penrose is an atheist. Why doesn’t he believe in a god?

      Fourth Dimension, anyone?

      Like

      Reply ↓

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.