My usage of the term wouldn't change anything whatsoever about anyone's ontology. It just changes whether we're saying that something belongs to the universe or not. God would simply be beyond the source of the rest of the universe. — Terrapin Station

Yes.

I’m not misunderstanding the way you’re using the word. Your definition is problematic because it makes it impossible to speak properly about God, who is beyond and the source of the universe as commonly defined. He’s not beyond, but part of, but not subject to the universe, however you define it, because that’s just heap of contradictions. — AJJ

So God's a concept? But wait, God can't be, that wouldn't make sense. So God's a special exception? But wait, there's no justification for that. So we shouldn't believe that God, defined as such, exists.

Gnarly dude, that. Fuzzy hair, no socks......and a brain the size of Montana, I swear.

To say the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed for no reason is magical talk. You’ll have to explain why it’s special pleading. — AJJ

How is it "magical talk" when those are the only options?* If you introduce god, either he has always existed (maybe in timeless existence if you think that makes sense), or he suddenly appeared at some point.

(*footnote: it's more "spontaneously appeared" for the first option)

To say the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed for no reason is magical talk. — AJJ

No it isn't, and that's a false dichotomy. What about there's no known reason?

You’ll have to explain why it’s special pleading. — AJJ

I have, so I interpret that as a request to needlessly repeat myself, which is a request I refuse, as I refused Rank Amateur when he tried that shit with me earlier.

I know, that’s why the source of the universe can’t be simply be a concept, as I said. — AJJ

Then you must justify the special exception to the rule, which you have yet to do.

Ever feel like you're going around in circles?

God would simply be beyond the source of the rest of the universe. — Terrapin Station

Which is nonsense, because God as defined by classical theism is the source of the universe, all of it. Your strange definition makes it impossible to argue properly about God.

If you introduce god, either he has always existed (maybe in timeless existence if you think that makes sense), or he suddenly appeared at some point. — Terrapin Station

He is posited as the source of the universe, so necessarily exists, and is necessarily timeless, so He can’t possibly have begun to exist, and therefore must always have existed.

Yes, I think it’s called the Big Bang Theory, which has its roots in.....can you believe it? A Catholic priest’s?......essay on “the hypothesis of the primeval atom”, and no, the singularity is not a scientific fact because we have yet to experimentally replicate even the possible conditions for one.

It’s all mathematical, and apparently, if complex mathematics isn’t magical enough, throw a bunch of words at the blank spots and call it good.

Dog.

Meet tail.

Have fun!!!

No it isn't, and that's a false dichotomy. What about there's no known reason? — S

The reason is either within the universe, in which case the universe is its own source, or it is beyond the universe, in which case it is God. Unless you can think of one, there is no other option.

I have, so I interpret that as a request to needlessly repeat myself, which is a request I refuse, as I refused Rank Amateur when he tried that shit with me. — S

I’m calling BS on that then. There are no unfavourable aspects of my case that you’ve pointed out and I’ve ignored. What I’ve said is itself a justification for believing in God; asking for a justification of the justification is silly, so unless you can be specific with your objections, rather than throwing alleged fallacies around, I’m bored and don’t want to argue about this anymore.

He is posited as the source of the universe, so necessarily exists, and is necessarily timeless, so He can’t possibly have begun to exist, and therefore must always have existed. — AJJ

Which is in line with the notion that either something always existed or that whatever exists spontaneously appeared.

Which is nonsense, because God as defined by classical theism is the source of the universe, all of it. — AJJ

That's simply using "universe" in a different way, which is fine. That's just not the way I use the term. The way I use the term doesn't change anything other than a word we're applying to things.

Yes, but God has always existed by virtue of his own, necessary, nature. The universe, if it has such a nature, cannot have it necessarily, but rather by some kind of magic.

That's simply using "universe" in a different way, which is fine. That's just not the way I use the term. The way I use the term doesn't change anything other than a word we're applying to things. — Terrapin Station

It changes everything. As I’ve pointed out and demonstrated, it makes it impossible to talk properly about God.

The universe, if it has such a nature, cannot have it necessarily, — AJJ

Why not?

It changes everything. As I’ve pointed out and demonstrated, it makes it impossible to talk properly about God. — AJJ

Wouldn't you be able to talk "properly" about God without even using the word "universe"?

The reason is either within the universe, in which case the universe is its own source, or it is beyond the universe, in which case it is God. Unless you can think of one, there is no other option. — AJJ

You haven't provided anything that I accept to be a justification for what would otherwise be special pleading, and I explain why I don't accept your attempt at justification further down this post.

And we don't know anything about any possible "event" - if that's even the right word - prior to the Big Bang, or even if there was a "prior" to the Big Bang.

I’m calling BS on that then. There are no unfavourable aspects of my case that you’ve pointed out and I’ve ignored. What I’ve said is itself a justification for believing in God; asking for a justification of the justification is silly, so unless you can be specific with your objections, rather than throwing alleged fallacies around, I’m bored and don’t want to argue about this anymore. — AJJ

Your attempted justification relied on a dichotomy between, on the one hand, magical thinking, which is not the explanation that has been proposed, and not an accurate description of the explanation proposed; and on the other hand, something which has a certain set of attributes which I only know can arguably apply to concepts. You rule out the first option based on a mischaracterisation, so that option remains for consideration, and I consider it more plausible than unnecessarily positing a fantastical being which we're to simply accept as a special exception to the rule just because.

Thanks, never hear of the Big Bang before. Please. The point is, there is no philosophical difference for you pointing to a singularity and others pointing to an uncreated creator. Yours is just based on a faith in science theirs to a different faith.

This part I am not sure of, but I think general relativity breaks down before singularity into quantum mechanics. Where the physics is now, is trying to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics.

The universe, if it has such a nature, cannot have it necessarily,
— AJJ

Why not? — Terrapin Station

God is necessarily timeless, and has his eternality by virtue of this. The universe is not timeless, so if it has eternality then it just has it, for no reason, as if by magic.

Wouldn't you be able to talk "properly" about God without even using the word "universe"? — Terrapin Station

Yeah. But you can’t talk properly about Him using your definition of “universe”.

if you really want to blow your mind, if quantum mechanics and supports block time, Then science is only predictable and useful when linked to a specific space time plane. This makes all arguments metaphysical. Not sure any of that is true, but it is cool

God is necessarily timeless, and has his eternality by virtue of this. The universe is not timeless, so if it has eternality then it just has it, for no reason, as if by magic. — AJJ

"The universe has always existed by virtue of its own, necessary, nature."--what does that have to do with "timelessness"?

Yeah. But you can’t talk properly about Him using your definition of “universe”. — AJJ

You could say exactly the same things sans the word "universe."

And we don't know anything about any possible event - if that's even the right word - prior to the Big Bang, or even if there was a "prior" to the Big Bang. — S

Well if there wasn’t anything prior to the Big Bang then either the universe brought itself into existence or it was created.

Everything else you said was assertion and prejudice. You’ll disagree, of course, but I’m bored and I don’t care.

"The universe has always existed by virtue of its own, necessary, nature."--what does that have to do with "timelessness"? — Terrapin Station

Nothing. But that’s exactly what I’m calling magical thinking.

You could say exactly the same things sans the word "universe." — Terrapin Station

I’ll just say it again. Your definition of “universe” makes it impossible to talk properly about God, as I’ve said, and demonstrated.

Well if there wasn’t anything prior to the Big Bang then either the universe brought itself into existence or it was created. — AJJ

That's merely based on an "if", so it's no refutation. Back to the drawing board you go.

Everything else you said was assertion and prejudice. You’ll disagree, of course, but I’m bored and I don’t care. — AJJ

Sure, I'm the one who's making bald assertions and saying stuff out of prejudice. Your accusations of magical thinking are perfectly reasonable and reflect your impartial judgement. :ok:

Nothing. But that’s exactly what I’m calling magical thinking. — AJJ

If either side of the choice of "always existed" or "spontaneously popped into existence" is "magical thinking," then " magical thinking" is unavoidable, and what of it?

Your definition of “universe” makes it impossible to talk properly about God, — AJJ

You just said that we could talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." You can do that under the way I use universe, too--you can talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." So in that regard it's the same. My usage of the term would make no practical difference.

Hey....you asked me if there was a theory; common decorum mandates that I answer.

Yeah, odd isn’t it? GR points to a sub-Planck dynamic but falls apart as an explanatory device once it gets there.

There may be no philosophical difference in the conceptual imaginings, but there is a significant difference in the verification in the phenomenal aspect of those imaginings. Even if it is said such verifications are themselves based on a form of philosophical theory, it remains much more objectively manifest than any other. Pretty hard to argue the objectivity of gravity philosophically after falling out of a tree.

Yeah, fine.

Does that mean I can do my victory dance?

If either side of the choice of "always existed" or "spontaneously popped into existence" is "magical thinking," then " magical thinking" is unavoidable, and what of it? — Terrapin Station

It’s magical, and God isn’t. You’ll disagree, of course, but I think we’re about finished with this argument for the time being.

You just said that we could talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." You can do that under the way I use universe, too--you can talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." So in that regard it's the same. My usage of the term would make no practical difference. — Terrapin Station

Your definition does make a practical difference, as I’ve said, and demonstrated. Again, I’ve demonstrated it, it’s a problem, as I’ve demonstrated.

Does that mean I can do my victory dance? — S

You’d have to be a bloody fool to, so go ahead.

Roger that. But I’m a metaphysical kinda guy, so it’s fine with me. Still, there was a time when mathematics wasn’t associated with off-planet possibilities, but now Voyager2 is out of the solar system, and hasn’t fallen apart or disappeared like it never was, so.....maybe Tegmark was right after all.

Besides, I got me one of those bigger-than-really-necessary backyard telescopes, and when I point that sucka anywhere in the up direction.......(gasp).....sufficient reason to think empirically, if you ask me.

You’d have to be a bloody fool to, so go ahead. — AJJ

You're right, I should be more level-headed, like you, and believe in a timeless, spaceless, eternal, conscious, immaterial, transcendent, yakety yak baloney.