The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

[gerry]

Originally posted by gerry
The reason why I have to go into agreement on concepts and rules in the God debate is because otherwise there is no end to the argumentosity of atheists.

I don’t think so. I think it is because you keep on getting entangled in your own definitions because you haven’t really thought their consequences through.

Okay, tell me, and again, never too much repetition though, just as never too much of a nutritious diet but not excessive, taken regularly three times a day in conventional scheduling.

This is the ‘back to square one’ tactic I mentioned in my previous post.

I submit we have come to agreement on the concept of the universe, as can be gathered from your thoughts put into words and also my thoughts put into words:
The universe is the totality of existence where everything existing exists in even just imaginable things but subjects of man's discourse.

If you have any exceptions to the above formulation for the concept of the universe which we have concurred or still will concur on, please make them known now, and we will put up another formulation.

I already have agreed to this from your post #55: the universe is the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe. I understand that whenever you use the word ‘universe’ you mean the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe. When I use the word ‘universe’ in this thread I mean the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe, even though I personally have a different concept of ‘universe’. And others may have a different concept too, which is why you (or I) can not simply quote others. If an ‘atheist scientist’ (whatever that may be) says something like “the universe consists of matter and energy; matter is made of atoms and those are made of subatomic particles”, then with ‘universe’ he may not mean the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe; he may for instance mean the part of the totality of existence that was caused by the Big Bang – the more usual meaning of ‘universe’. Which is why I still would like you to answer the question: in our discussion, what do you call the part of the universe that exists as a result of the Big Bang?

Otherwise I invite you to now go with me into the concept of evidence, namely, from my part first because as you put it I am the proponent of the topic that "The universe is the evidence for God's existence."
Evidence is any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

Already agreed upon.

Okay, Wol, you want to know what is my 'argument' for God's existence, see my post in #1.

I take it then you want to stick to your definition of God as:

in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, maker of everything that is not Himself.

Now that is a definition I do not agree with. The primary reason is “maker of everything that is not himself” would also apply to a natural, non divine cause of everything that is not itself. Therefore you’ll need another qualifier to discern God from a natural first cause.
The second reason is it is self referring: God is the maker of everything that is not God is a definition that ‘hangs in the air’.

(A third reason I disagree with the definition is that I highly question if God, according to you or the Christian faith, is the maker of everything that is not himself; if He is, then every decision that was ever made by apparantly any human was in fact made by God; we’d not be responsible for anything, unless God also made the decision that humans are responsible for the decisions He Himself made. But then God would also have made my opinion that I do not agree with that decision).

And finally: even if we were to define God as maker of everything that is not Himself (that is, allowing that God-as-then-defined may be nothing more than a natural cause), I do not a priori agree with the conclusion in post #1 that we know of the existence of such a cause from the existence of the universe, but that is a discussion better left for later.

Please be patient, Wolper, we have already come to concurrence on what is the universe and what is evidence; and we will return to this post and other posts where you have declared your agreement to our mutually worked out concepts of universe and of evidence.

Now you have declared your exceptions to my concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe above; thank you, we have now come to this most important for yourself your exceptions to the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

So, we will work together to thrash out your exceptioons and hope to come to a concurred on concept of universe, then I will bring in again my demonstration of God's existence already put forth in post #1, in order for us both to see how you cannot accept or can accept my demonstration (which you want to call an argument).

I take it then you want to stick to your definition of God as:

[From Gerry] ...God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, maker of everything that is not Himself.

[1] Now that is a definition I do not agree with. The primary reason is “maker of everything that is not himself” would also apply to a natural, non divine cause of everything that is not itself. Therefore you’ll need another qualifier to discern God from a natural first cause.

[2] The second reason is it is self referring: God is the maker of everything that is not God is a definition that ‘hangs in the air’.

[3] (A third reason I disagree with the definition is that I highly question if God, according to you or the Christian faith, is the maker of everything that is not himself; if He is, then every decision that was ever made by apparantly any human was in fact made by God; we’d not be responsible for anything, unless God also made the decision that humans are responsible for the decisions He Himself made. But then God would also have made my opinion that I do not agree with that decision).

[4] And finally: even if we were to define God as maker of everything that is not Himself (that is, allowing that God-as-then-defined may be nothing more than a natural cause), I do not a priori agree with the conclusion in post #1 that we know of the existence of such a cause from the existence of the universe, but that is a discussion better left for later.

Suppose you just tell me what is the concept of God you want to propose as coming from your own thinking (yes, I know, that you don't believe there is God, but you must have a concept of God just the same), so that we can exchange thoughts together, by which dialog we will finally resolve together on all reasonable grounds that there is God for me or there is no God for yourself.


At this point if I may beg your indulgence, I believe that I must have said it already perhaps several times, that as we have or will have agreed to our concurred on concepts of universe, evidence, existence, God, nonetheless we must be also both receptive to possible further specifications of the concepts already concurred on; in other words we still leave open the likelihood that we might have to still polish these concepts as we continue on with our excahnge of thoughts on the universe is the evidence for God's existence.

No, we don't want and we don't care to be so fanatical about boxing ourselves into our already previously and still standing concurred on concepts: is that all right with you?

We can call that as that we are open to possible revisions from both sides on further if necessary polishing of concepts. Okay?

[ Somebody here will jump up now and shout, rhetorical trickery. ] Let him shout his throat hoarse, I will not be and neither you be distracted by him.




Gerry

[wolper]

Suppose you just tell me what is the concept of God you want to propose as coming from your own thinking (yes, I know, that you don't believe there is God, but you must have a concept of God just the same), so that we can exchange thoughts together,..

I'd say He'd have at least to be a personal entity that wilfully designed and created everything we know that exist. Not necessarily benevolent.

..by which dialog we will finally resolve together on all reasonable grounds that there is God for me or there is no God for yourself.

I don't think that will be resolved here (apart from the fact that for Gerry, God exists and for wolper, God does not exist are not concurrent conclusions, i.e. both could be true), but then the thread's subject is not to resolve whether or not God exists, but whether the existence of the universe leads us to know that He exists.

btw You still haven't told me what you call the part of the universe that was caused by the Big Bang, you know, the bit that we know for sure exists. Inquiring minds want to know!

Best,
wolper

[gerry]

Originally posted by gerry
Suppose you just tell me what is the concept of God you want to propose as coming from your own thinking (yes, I know, that you don't believe there is God, but you must have a concept of God just the same), so that we can exchange thoughts together...

I'd say He'd have at least to be a personal entity that wilfully designed and created everything we know that exist. Not necessarily benevolent.

...by which dialog we will finally resolve together on all reasonable grounds that there is God for me or there is no God for yourself.

I don't think that will be resolved here (apart from the fact that for Gerry, God exists and for wolper, God does not exist are not concurrent conclusions, i.e. both could be true), but then the thread's subject is not to resolve whether or not God exists, but whether the existence of the universe leads us to know that He exists.

btw You still haven't told me what you call the part of the universe that was caused by the Big Bang, you know, the bit that we know for sure exists. Inquiring minds want to know!

Best,
wolper

Thanks a lot, Wolper, that I can talk with you reasonably; for I have come to the impression that a lot of exchanges with atheists or more correctly between theists and atheists are nothing but hissing between them.

You say about God: "I'd say He'd have at least to be a personal entity that wilfully designed and created everything we know that exist. Not necessarily benevolent."

That is an acceptable concept of God from your part even though I know that you don't accept such God to exist; and your ultimate reason why such God does not exist is because He is not a benevolent God from all indications of your experience with how the world and mankind are faring.

Have I gotten your soul in that regard, that God has not been benevolent when you look around and see that things are so bad for mankind, and as atheist authors also love to point out about how things are so badly designed, and forgive me they keep insisting they could do a better job of designing everything.

1. That is one point, your reason why there can be no God, because such a God is not benevolent enough for you.

2. Your next point is -- which you have pointed out correctly -- that the topic as it is spelled out in the title of the thread is not about us two coming to concurrence about God existing or God not existing: BECAUSE neither you nor I will ever concur together to God existing or God not existing: one or the other together agreeing: for the title of the thread is: "The universe is the evidence for God's existence", that is the invitation that we concur on that proposition: "The universe is the evidence for God's existence."

3. Then your third point is that you want me to reply to your question to me: "You still haven't told me what you call the part of the universe that was caused by the Big Bang, you know, the bit that we know for sure exists. Inquiring minds want to know!"

As to number one, in effect you are saying that -- to put it in black and white: There is a not-benevolent God and the concept of such a God is the following from you: "a personal entity that wilfully designed and created everything we know that exist. Not necessarily benevolent."

I think I did say that we can work out what to do with or how to do with an evil God as to see if at all possible that God is not all evil or all not-benevolent: at least but there is some goodness or benevolence in Him.

What do you think about such an attitude as proposed by myself?

As to number two, I agree with you completely that this thread is not about coming to concurrence on the existence of God or non-existence of God, but it is about coming to agreement that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God.

Your position is that the universe is not any evidence for the existence of God? even as you proffered above what your concept of God is.

Since the universe is the only thing we have that can be in the ultimate analysis the evidence of anything at all that exists like for example as humans, if we deny that the universe is not evidence for anything at all, then we are reduced to not having evidence for the existence of anything at all.

Perhaps you will tell me that you agree the universe is the evidence for the existence of anything at all but not for God as per your concept of God -- BECAUSE God for you is a not-benevolent God: you mean to tell me that if I want the universe to be the evidence for the existence of God it is a God that is not benevolent.

In regard to number three, you are asking me what do I call the part of the universe that was caused by the Big Bang which is followed by the coming to existence of the part of the universe we surely know to exist?

Here are your words: ""You still haven't told me what you call the part of the universe that was caused by the Big Bang, you know, the bit that we know for sure exists. Inquiring minds want to know!"

Let me just put the two things involved in your words above: in executory sequence:

The Big Bang caused the part of the universe that part that is which we surely know the existence of.

So, we do agree but just as a mental experiment (for there are thinkers who doubt whether at all there was a Big Bang whatever, and we must do justice to them) for the purpose of our dialog:

(i) There was an event called the Big Bang,
(ii) This Big Bang caused or is followed by the part of the universe we surely know to exist.

Question from you to me: What do I call that part of the universe caused by or coming after the Big Bang?

My answer: The observable [to man] universe.


Dear Wolper, as I have now come to a lot of certainty, I have the firm idea that for atheists who do not hiss in place of reasonable dialog, i.e. who talk reason with me, there is God but He is an evil God or at least a not-benevolent God; so you are justified in insisting that you will not accept an evil God or one at least not-benevolent.

Have I gotten your heart and mind correctly?



Gerry

[gerry]

Here is again my concept of what is the universe,

The universe is the totality of existence where we humans are living in and are parts of, as also everything existing exists in, even just imaginable things subjects of man's discourse.

Please give me your concept of what is the universe.


Now, let us go into a computer referee for keeping theists and atheists talking reason instead of flippancy or hissing at each other.

I say it is possible for software engineers to contrive a program by which it the computer that is will filter out all utterances which are not reasonable but only flippancy and hissing.

Why do I have such an idea?

Because computers are logic machines and software engineers are people experts in logic, they are the ones who produce programs for the machine to follow and to come up with logical answers, or redraft a statement so that only the logical substance is retained; and if an utterance is of no logical or reason substance it will filter out such an utterance with a hoarse beep, otherwise every utterance that is reasonable or rational or of a logical import it will just beep sweetly.

Tell me again why you say it is impossible for software engineers to produce such a computer program?

You see, I know that computers have been programmed to tell mankind whether a situation is conducive to life or not, for example, and correct me if I am wrong or it is all pure science fiction, you send a landing craft on an object in outer space and the computer there will immediately transmit the information back to earth: that the object has an environment that is not conducive or is conducive to life.


So, Loss, first tell me what is your concept of the universe, and as an aside your (again) reason why computers cannot be programmed to act as referee in the God debate between theists and atheists.


I am so happy that you are around and care to interact with me.




Gerry

[gerry]

Sorry guys here, that post above is addressed to another atheist a Jew atheist in another forum, just disregard it.



Gerry

[JimL]

Gerry, in so far as I have followed this thread you have not really defined your God in a way that distinguishes him from the universe itself. This I think would be helpful to the discussion. Is your idea of God a being that is distinct from, a different substance than, seperate and apart from, his creation, i.e. the universe? Does the universe come into being within your idea of God, is it of the same substance, or is it a distinct creation that exists outside of, separate and apart from God?

[pancreasman]

And on the 8th page, I believe I have determined the nub of this thread:

' Some people, and I'm one of them (says gerry) think the universe is evidence of God's existence. Other people and that's all you other nasty guys (says gerry) think it isn't.'

[wolper]

Have I gotten your soul in that regard, that God has not been benevolent when you look around and see that things are so bad for mankind, and as atheist authors also love to point out about how things are so badly designed, and forgive me they keep insisting they could do a better job of designing everything.

1. That is one point, your reason why there can be no God, because such a God is not benevolent enough for you.

No, you got the wrong idea here. I did not say God is not benevolent; What I said ws if He exists He may be or may not be benevolent; benevolence is not necessarily an aspect of God; at least not as far as I’m concerned.

Perhaps you will tell me that you agree the universe is the evidence for the existence of anything at all but not for God as per your concept of God-

Well, no, strictly speaking it’s via our perceptions and observations that we know something –anything- exists. The universe is not evidence that anything exists, rather it’s anything existing that is evidence the universe exists. The universe is defined by anything existing, not the other way around.

-- BECAUSE God for you is a not-benevolent God: you mean to tell me that if I want the universe to be the evidence for the existence of God it is a God that is not benevolent

No, you misunderstood me here. I simply don't conclude from the existing universe that God exists - benevolent or not. But my concept of God is not per sé evil / non-benevolent.

[gerry]

Originally posted by gerry
Have I gotten your soul in that regard, that God has not been benevolent when you look around and see that things are so bad for mankind, and as atheist authors also love to point out about how things are so badly designed, and forgive me they keep insisting they could do a better job of designing everything.

1. That is one point, your reason why there can be no God, because such a God is not benevolent enough for you.

No, you got the wrong idea here. I did not say God is not benevolent; What I said ws if He exists He may be or may not be benevolent; benevolence is not necessarily an aspect of God; at least not as far as I’m concerned.

Perhaps you will tell me that you agree the universe is the evidence for the existence of anything at all but not for God as per your concept of God-

Well, no, strictly speaking it’s via our perceptions and observations that we know something –anything- exists. The universe is not evidence that anything exists, rather it’s anything existing that is evidence the universe exists. The universe is defined by anything existing, not the other way around.

-- BECAUSE God for you is a not-benevolent God: you mean to tell me that if I want the universe to be the evidence for the existence of God it is a God that is not benevolent

No, you misunderstood me here. I simply don't conclude from the existing universe that God exists - benevolent or not. But my concept of God is not per sé evil / non-benevolent.

Dear Wolper, before everything else, I must again commend you that you are into a viable, calm, reasonable, and productive conversation with me, thanks a lot.


Now, we do have a lot of disagreements, but as long as we talk as per above manner, instead of -- as I said in another forum repeatedly also here, resorting to mockery, parody, evasions, avoidance, and hissing and distractions -- that is the term I have come to describe a lot of atheists in that forum where I am also engaged with atheists in the God debate, we will achieve the resolution in the God debate.


I realize that the universe commands our attention in order to come to a concurring workable concept for the purpose of determining the existence of God.

Let us then concentrate on the universe.


You say:

From Gerry: Perhaps you will tell me that you agree the universe is the evidence for the existence of anything at all but not for God as per your concept of God.

Well, no, strictly speaking it’s via our perceptions and observations that we know something –anything- exists. The universe is not evidence that anything exists, rather it’s anything existing that is evidence the universe exists. The universe is defined by anything existing, not the other way around.

These are your sentences from the above words from you:

1. Well, no, strictly speaking it’s via our perceptions and observations that we know something –anything- exists.
2. The universe is not evidence that anything exists, rather
3. it’s anything existing that is evidence the universe exists.
4. The universe is defined by anything existing,
5. not the other way around [ Anything existing is defined by the universe].

I think I can agree with you that

1. it’s via our perceptions and observations that we know something –anything- exists.

So, before anything else it's our perception of anything at all which is the way we come to know anything at all exists.

And before that we have got to be conscious at all -- you would agree to that, yes, no?



So, shall we agree that we have got to be our conscious selves before we come to perceive anything at all to be existing by way of our perception.

To be precise, 'concise', and definitive:

The conscious self, i.e., I, you, he or she, or any other conscious self if at all there be any other conscious self, has got to exist consciously before it can even get to know by way of its perception of anything, that anything at all to be existing.

Can we just use two words to describe the whole assemblage of concepts and words above, namely:

Our experience, then in one word, EXPERIENCE.

See next post.



Gerry

[gerry]

Okay, Wolper, okay let us continue talking about concepts of the universe from you and from me, only this time we will talk from experience(s): I talk from my experiences and you talk from your experiences, then we will work most concentratedly to come to a concurring concept of the universe as known from our respective experiences.

I will just say as I said already time and again only this time with the prefix words: from my experience, what is my concept of the universe:

The universe is the totality of existence where we humans are living in and are parts of, and everything existing exists in, even imaginable things subjects of man's discourse.

Now, please, Wolper, from your expereiences tell me and the rest of mankind what is from your experiences the concept of the universe you have come to.




Gerry

[The Pixie]

Okay, Wolper, okay let us continue talking about concepts of the universe from you and from me, only this time we will talk from experience(s): I talk from my experiences and you talk from your experiences, then we will work most concentratedly to come to a concurring concept of the universe as known from our respective experiences.
...
Now, please, Wolper, from your expereiences tell me and the rest of mankind what is from your experiences the concept of the universe you have come to.

Round and round it goes. Here we are on page eight of yet another thread where gerry continues to hair-split and obfuscate over what he means by the "universe".

Incredible...

[wolper]

it’s via our perceptions and observations that we know something –anything- exists.


So, before anything else it's our perception of anything at all which is the way we come to know anything at all exists.

And before that we have got to be conscious at all -- you would agree to that, yes, no?

Yes I would.

So, shall we agree that we have got to be our conscious selves before we come to perceive anything at all to be existing by way of our perception.

If taken 'conscious' in a broad sense, then yes.

The conscious self, i.e., I, you, he or she, or any other conscious self if at all there be any other conscious self, has got to exist consciously before it can even get to know by way of its perception of anything, that anything at all to be existing.

Yes, but we need not be conscious of a thing for that thing to exist. The universe existed before we were conscious, before we were around.

Can we just use two words to describe the whole assemblage of concepts and words above, namely:

Our experience, then in one word, EXPERIENCE.

This I do not understand. Our experience, then in one word, EXPERIENCE what? There seems to be something missing here; you can be too concise.

Now, please, Wolper, from your expereiences tell me and the rest of mankind what is from your experiences the concept of the universe you have come to.

Again? Well, personally I think the universe had best be described by the observable bit of everything that exists; all the stars, planets, moons, nebulae, and then some, and that started to exist presumably some 13.7 billion yrs ago. But for the duration of this thread I’ve agreed that ‘universe’ means ‘the totality of existence where we humans are living in and are parts of, and everything existing exists in, even imaginable things subjects of man's discourse’, or, as I colloquially think of it: everything that exists. For the discussion at hand this makes little difference, since if the observable bit of the universe is evidence for God’s existence, then so is everything that exists.

Not that this is very relevant for the discussion, because the existence of the universe is not the subject of this thread nor disputed; the existence of God is. Therefore we must clearly define ‘God’ when we discuss whether the universe is evidence for His existence. Now I maintain that if (if!) the observable bit of the universe ultimately had a natural cause, say one that caused by chance (or coincidence, which is imo not the same), that cause would not be God, and thus ‘maker of everything’ falls short of a definition of God. So far I haven’t heard from you whether or not you agree.

[gerry]

[...]

Again? Well, personally I think the universe had best be described by the observable bit of everything that exists; all the stars, planets, moons, nebulae, and then some, and that started to exist presumably some 13.7 billion yrs ago. But for the duration of this thread I’ve agreed that ‘universe’ means ‘the totality of existence where we humans are living in and are parts of, and everything existing exists in, even imaginable things subjects of man's discourse’, or, as I colloquially think of it: everything that exists. For the discussion at hand this makes little difference, since if the observable bit of the universe is evidence for God’s existence, then so is everything that exists.

Not that this is very relevant for the discussion, because the existence of the universe is not the subject of this thread nor disputed; the existence of God is. Therefore we must clearly define ‘God’ when we discuss whether the universe is evidence for His existence. Now I maintain that if (if!) the observable bit of the universe ultimately had a natural cause, say one that caused by chance (or coincidence, which is imo not the same), that cause would not be God, and thus ‘maker of everything’ falls short of a definition of God. So far I haven’t heard from you whether or not you agree.

You know what I notice? You have stated something that is most accommodating from your part notwithstanding that you are what I might call a confirmed and committed atheist, meaning in no way whatsoever are you ever going to accept that God exists, namely, these words from you:

For the discussion at hand [The universe is the evidence for God's existence.] this makes little difference, since if the observable bit of the universe is evidence for God’s existence, then so is everything that exists.

Yes! Everything that exists is evidence for the existence of God! That is my reasonable conviction.

Now, you also say:

Now I maintain that if (if!) the observable bit of the universe ultimately had a natural cause, say one that caused by chance (or coincidence, which is imo not the same), that cause would not be God, and thus ‘maker of everything’ falls short of a definition of God. So far I haven’t heard from you whether or not you agree.

You are saying in the above text this enumerated list of sentences:

1. Now I maintain that
2. if (if!) the observable bit of the universe ultimately had a natural cause, say one that caused by chance (or coincidence, which is imo not the same),
3. that cause would not be God, and
4. thus ‘maker of everything’ falls short of a definition of God.
5. So far I haven’t heard from you whether or not you agree.

Let me remove the "if" and other words and concepts which are dispensable in the your text above, and I can see that what you are saying precisely, concisely, and definitively and I hope I get you correctly, is the following proposition:

The cause of the observable universe is chance or coincidence.

You want to hear from me whether I would agree that the cause of the universe is chance or coincidence?

Is that your reasonable conviction, that the observable universe has a cause which is chance or coincidence?

Or would you prefer to state that you don't know about the exact nature of the cause but it the observable universe does have a cause?

Okay, allow me to put these three interconnected questions to you:

1. You are of the reasonable conviction that the observable universe has a cause: yes, no?

2. If yes, you still don't know because you cannot know the nature of the cause: yes, no?

3. However, you can imagine that it could be chance or coincidence: yes, no?

Now, you have some exceptions to my concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself, perhaps instead of answering the three questions above, you just precisely, concisely, and definitively reduce all your exceptions to my concept of God into one exception or objection, and state it in your next post.

So, you have a choice: answer the three questions or just produce one exception or objection you want to pose to my concept of God.

If you choose the second option, that is very logical on your part because you have always wanted me to react to your exceptions or objections to my concept of God.

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

Dear Wolper, I am trying to determine with the greatest of precision but with the least words and concepts however definitive ones, what exactly is your reasonable conviction for denying that God exists as understood by me, namely, the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself (or we can take out that last phrase, "that is not Himself" to make things simpler).




Gerry

[wolper]

You know what I notice? You have stated something that is most accommodating from your part notwithstanding that you are what I might call a confirmed and committed atheist, meaning in no way whatsoever are you ever going to accept that God exists, namely, these words from you:

For the discussion at hand [The universe is the evidence for God's existence.] this makes little difference, since if the observable bit of the universe is evidence for God’s existence, then so is everything that exists.

You know what I notice? You're trying to shift the burden of proof here. It's not my burden to prove the universe is evidence that God doesn't exist, a position I have not taken. Your opening statement is the universe is evidence for the existence of God, so the burden of proof is yours.

Yes! Everything that exists is evidence for the existence of God! That is my reasonable conviction..

Yes, I got that it is your conviction. But it's not enough for you to state it 'as is', as if it were the default position that is true unless disproven; if you want to make a point you'll have to argue why you think everything that exists is evidence for the existence of God; iow why it's reasonable.

Now, you also say:

Now I maintain that if (if!) the observable bit of the universe ultimately had a natural cause, say one that caused by chance (or coincidence, which is imo not the same), that cause would not be God, and thus ‘maker of everything’ falls short of a definition of God. So far I haven’t heard from you whether or not you agree.

You are saying in the above text this enumerated list of sentences:

1. Now I maintain that
2. if (if!) the observable bit of the universe ultimately had a natural cause, say one that caused by chance (or coincidence, which is imo not the same),
3. that cause would not be God, and
4. thus ‘maker of everything’ falls short of a definition of God.
5. So far I haven’t heard from you whether or not you agree.

Let me remove the "if" and other words and concepts which are dispensable in the your text above, and I can see that what you are saying precisely, concisely, and definitively and I hope I get you correctly, is the following proposition:

The cause of the observable universe is chance or coincidence.

You want to hear from me whether I would agree that the cause of the universe is chance or coincidence?

No, because i haven't said that the cause for the universe is chance or coincidence; you have conveniently removed the if from my statement (an if I even repeated with an exclamation mark) turning it into a much stronger statement and thus a straw man.

Okay, allow me to put these three interconnected questions to you:

1. You are of the reasonable conviction that the observable universe has a cause: yes, no?

2. If yes, you still don't know because you cannot know the nature of the cause: yes, no?

3. However, you can imagine that it could be chance or coincidence: yes, no?

1.No. I don't know if the observable universe had a cause or not.

2. If the observable universe had a cause then we don't know its nature. (whether we even can know that nature is a different matter)

3. Yes, if the observable universe had a cause I can not a priori exclude the possibility that it was natural, and that alone disproves 'the universe is evidence for God's existence'

Now, you have some exceptions to my concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself, perhaps instead of answering the three questions above, you just precisely, concisely, and definitively reduce all your exceptions to my concept of God into one exception or objection, and state it in your next post.

So, you have a choice: answer the three questions or just produce one exception or objection you want to pose to my concept of God.

If you choose the second option, that is very logical on your part because you have always wanted me to react to your exceptions or objections to my concept of God..

I already did. Unless you can disprove a natural cause for the observable universe, the existence of the (observable) universe is not evidence for the existence of God.

Dear Wolper, I am trying to determine with the greatest of precision but with the least words and concepts however definitive ones, what exactly is your reasonable conviction for denying that God exists as understood by me, namely, the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself (or we can take out that last phrase, "that is not Himself" to make things simpler)

Why would you wanna do that? Why not stick to the subject of this thread? It is not my burden to disprove God here. But the simplest, concisest reason why I fail to be convinced by 'the universe is evidence for the existence of God' is that before I can know that God exists, you must first disprove the possibility of a natural cause for the observable universe.

[gerry]

Originally posted by gerry
You know what I notice? You have stated something that is most accommodating from your part notwithstanding that you are what I might call a confirmed and committed atheist, meaning in no way whatsoever are you ever going to accept that God exists, namely, these words from you:

For the discussion at hand [The universe is the evidence for God's existence.] this makes little difference, since if the observable bit of the universe is evidence for God’s existence, then so is everything that exists.

You know what I notice? You're trying to shift the burden of proof here. It's not my burden to prove the universe is evidence that God doesn't exist, a position I have not taken. Your opening statement is the universe is evidence for the existence of God, so the burden of proof is yours.


Yes! Everything that exists is evidence for the existence of God! That is my reasonable conviction..

Yes, I got that it is your conviction. But it's not enough for you to state it 'as is', as if it were the default position that is true unless disproven; if you want to make a point you'll have to argue why you think everything that exists is evidence for the existence of God; iow why it's reasonable.

Now, you also say:

Now I maintain that if (if!) the observable bit of the universe ultimately had a natural cause, say one that caused by chance (or coincidence, which is imo not the same), that cause would not be God, and thus ‘maker of everything’ falls short of a definition of God. So far I haven’t heard from you whether or not you agree.




You are saying in the above text this enumerated list of sentences:
Now I maintain that
if (if!) the observable bit of the universe ultimately had a natural cause, say one that caused by chance (or coincidence, which is imo not the same),
that cause would not be God, and
thus ‘maker of everything’ falls short of a definition of God.
So far I haven’t heard from you whether or not you agree.
Let me remove the "if" and other words and concepts which are dispensable in the your text above, and I can see that what you are saying precisely, concisely, and definitively and I hope I get you correctly, is the following proposition:
The cause of the observable universe is chance or coincidence.



You want to hear from me whether I would agree that the cause of the universe is chance or coincidence?
No, because i haven't said that the cause for the universe is chance or coincidence; you have conveniently removed the if from my statement (an if I even repeated with an exclamation mark) turning it into a much stronger statement and thus a straw man.

Okay, allow me to put these three interconnected questions to you:

1. You are of the reasonable conviction that the observable universe has a cause: yes, no?

2. If yes, you still don't know because you cannot know the nature of the cause: yes, no?

3. However, you can imagine that it could be chance or coincidence: yes, no?
1.No. I don't know if the observable universe had a cause or not.

2. If the observable universe had a cause then we don't know its nature. (whether we even can know that nature is a different matter)

3. Yes, if the observable universe had a cause I can not a priori exclude the possibility that it was natural, and that alone disproves 'the universe is evidence for God's existence'
Now, you have some exceptions to my concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself, perhaps instead of answering the three questions above, you just precisely, concisely, and definitively reduce all your exceptions to my concept of God into one exception or objection, and state it in your next post.

So, you have a choice: answer the three questions or just produce one exception or objection you want to pose to my concept of God.

If you choose the second option, that is very logical on your part because you have always wanted me to react to your exceptions or objections to my concept of God..

I already did. Unless you can disprove a natural cause for the observable universe, the existence of the (observable) universe is not evidence for the existence of God.

Dear Wolper, I am trying to determine with the greatest of precision but with the least words and concepts however definitive ones, what exactly is your reasonable conviction for denying that God exists as understood by me, namely, the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself (or we can take out that last phrase, "that is not Himself" to make things simpler)

Why would you wanna do that? Why not stick to the subject of this thread? It is not my burden to disprove God here. But the simplest, concisest reason why I fail to be convinced by 'the universe is evidence for the existence of God' is that before I can know that God exists, you must first disprove the possibility of a natural cause for the observable universe.

Dear Wolper:

This is the only sentence from you that I find you accessible to my mind and heart:

I already did. Unless you can disprove a natural cause for the observable universe, the existence of the (observable) universe is not evidence for the existence of God.

Tell me, for I seem to see in your thoughts the great importance you put to the distinction between natural and supernatural and I understand for you there is nothing supernatural.

For myself this distinction is nothing, everything is either object or concept or both object and concept, period.

Now, tell me what is then the natural cause of the universe, for myself there is a cause of the universe, and I don't call it natural or supernatural.

And that cause is the cause of everything in the universe, period.

Now, I guess you will want me to define what is a cause and what is causality and I think you will deny that there is such a thing as a causality.

We can use words and concepts and get nowhere, but I understand that science is built on the knowledge and acceptance by scientists of the law of causality, namely, if something has a beginning, then something else puts it to existence at which point the thing with a beginning starts to exist.

Yes, you will bring in infinite regression and I will tell you that there is no such thing as an infinite regression, etc., etc., etc.

Anyway, tell me what is the natural cause of the universe?

Ah yes, we are talking about the observable universe, another thing you put a lot of importance on and I do also? -- not really; but it is not necessary for what else can we talk about except the observable universe -- but for me the observable universe is not limited to the one accessible to our external and internal senses and also by way of instrumentation via which our external and internal senses have access to the observable universe in the parts of the observable universe which cannot be accessible directly with out senses.

However, the parts of the universe not accessible to our senses not even with instrumentation from science and technology, they are still accessible to our mind through our reasoning prowess.


And so on and on and on and on.


But I am glad that you are interested in the natural cause of the observable universe, tell me what is the role of this natural cause of the observable universe, in the observable universe and in relation to the observable universe?


It is the cause of everything in the observable universe isn't it, yes no?

Oh no, don't tell me, "We don't know"!

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

Thanks Wolper for your accessibility or accessivity to me, thanks a lot, for I find other atheists like they are nothing but robots with all the set standardized answers to all the possible attempts I am trying to get them to come to agreement with me on concepts, etc., and it is all nothing but opposition -- in effect disagreement, even to the worst instance of silliness.



Gerry