Does a Good God Exist?

[wyguy]

Continued...

We have empirical evidence to suggest that the universe was quite a different place back then, so it is possible that the laws as we understand them now, did not apply, or applied in a different way.

*sigh*

For once, I'd sure like to see even a little shred of proof for what you keep claiming. Somehow, I don't think I'm gonna get it.

As to the burden of proof, the point is that these are possibilities

Once again, we are back to my giant bowl of chilli.

In order to remove those first two cups you rely on the fact that they supposedly break the laws of science as we understand them. Yet your third cup does precisely the same thing, only even more blatantly. Youre simply engaged in a case of special pleading by trying to ring fence the third cup- while breaking the laws of science somehow disqualifies the first two explanations, it is the very essence of the third and yet you dont discount it.

If anyone is doing any "special pleading" it's you. You keep pleading that the laws of physics we're, in fact, broken in the past. Yet you offer no evidence for that claim, you simply say it's a "possibility." Your ideas are faith-based through and through.

As I am using the laws of physics as now proven and taught, thus, the ball under the third cup is proven.

If I accept your argument, then I must also reject your solution: If naturalism entails that an explanation for the universe which invokes non-standard causation is fundamentally flawed, then this rules out the universe from nothing possibility, and also the God possibility, since that requires the creation of time, which is not a scientifically or linguistically coherent concept if it is suggested as anything but a metaphor. Again, you cannot have your cosmological cake and eat it.

Once again, the God of the Bible, the Creator and sustainer of the Universe, is not bound, is not subjected to, is not compelled in any way, to obey any of the naturalistic laws He Himself has authored.

From the wikipedia article on scientific laws: A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation

That only strengthens my position. I am using the laws as repeatedly observed. You use nothing but speculation as "proof" for the idea the Universe could create itself. You cannot have your cosmological cake and eat it.

God could have only given the Earth to man and not bothered to create anything beyond the solar system, or the Milkey Way. But for some bizarre reason, a supposedly perfect entity decides to created 14 billion years worth of matter and energy, 99.999% of which will never have anything to do with the affairs of mankind.

Once again, your lack of Biblical research shines through. The Universe as it is now, is under a curse from God. It groans, waiting for it's redemption (Romans 8:22), which will come when, in the book of Revelation, God will create a new earth and a new Universe. It will be as it was before the Fall. And you are simply assuming from your bias that God doesn't have a purpose in mind for making the Universe as big as He has.

Yes but youre missing the point- youre assuming that a standard causal relationship applies such that the cause must always precede the effect. Quantum entanglement offers evidence of non-standard causation.

Once again, I'd sure love to see any proof for that theorectical argument. Quantum entanglement is nothing but an unproven idea that you are tossing in as somehow proof for your beliefs. And it still doesn't answer the question of where the matter and energy came from, nor can it prove they are eternal.

Either its simple speculation or it isnt. You seem to want to dismiss Hawking as talking nonsense when he says something you disagree with, but rely on him to support your claims when you think its convenient.

First of all, Hawking hasn't proven his "gravity brought forth everything from nothing" idea because gravity is "something."

And then there's that pesky little thing called "evidence" which Hawking has not delivered.

Oh, and I've mostly use Hawking to discredit you - not to support me.

See above. The laws of thermodynamics are accepted as descriptions of the way the universe currently behaves, and are taught as such. They are not derived from observations of the moments immediately following the big bang, and your assumption that we can work backwards from the universe as it is, to the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, is not accepted by scientists, philosophers or logicians.

Once again, I have the proof of observational science to back me up, while you have your speculations that those laws "acted differently" in the past, and yet you don't see your own hypocrisy.

[wyguy]

Continued...

Consider the role of gravity in the early universe, for example.

That isn't nothing creating something all by itself. Prove that, or infinite regress.

My position does not require the additional assumption of an ontological reality beyond the physical.

Sure it does, as you haven't proven the singularity created itself from nothingness, or that it always existed in stasis, without degradation.

I simply think it

[MorningGlory]

Once again, I have the proof of observational science to back me up, while you have your speculations that those laws "acted differently" in the past, and yet you don't see your own hypocrisy.

Beware the quick sand of argument with someone who argues to hear their head rattle. All of the pseudoscientists who post here with neverending litanies of 'would've, should've, could've' are crushingly boring and unrelentingly clueless.

[enoob57]

Once again, I have the proof of observational science to back me up, while you have your speculations that those laws "acted differently" in the past, and yet you don't see your own hypocrisy.

Beware the quick sand of argument with someone who argues to hear their head rattle. All of the pseudoscientists who post here with neverending litanies of 'would've, should've, could've' are crushingly boring and unrelentingly clueless.

oh it reminds me of the tongue twister... How much wood could a wood chuck chuck ... Love Steven

[MorningGlory]

Once again, I have the proof of observational science to back me up, while you have your speculations that those laws "acted differently" in the past, and yet you don't see your own hypocrisy.

Beware the quick sand of argument with someone who argues to hear their head rattle. All of the pseudoscientists who post here with neverending litanies of 'would've, should've, could've' are crushingly boring and unrelentingly clueless.

oh it reminds me of the tongue twister... How much wood could a wood chuck chuck ... Love Steven

That makes me think of that insurance commercial....with the laughing woodchucks chucking the man's wood into the pond.....

[doubting_tommy]

Hi MorningGlory, I

[doubting_tommy]

Hi Luftwaffle, thanks for your comments.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but in my opinion this is a false dilemma.

'Good' is what God's nature is. As such it isn't ontologically God (in a sense that God's existence equates to the existence of good), and neither is it an arbitrary decision and neither is it something that God is subject to.

In other words it's a property of God, not God Himself neither is it a decision that God made.

Perhaps this analogy is too simple, but think about a simple fire. Heat is a property of fire.

Fire doesn't adhere to heat, heat is a part of it. There isn't a prescriptive law that fire obeys in being hot.

Likewise fire didn't arbitrarily decide to be hot.

In a sense it comes down to determinism or freewill. The hidden assumption in your question is: "All things are either determined or willed". Can you prove this metaphysical assertion?

I assume you're an atheist or agnostic, and if so I can offer the cosmos as one example of something that I'm sure you'll believe is neither determined nor arbitraly willed, for if it is either, then it begs the question who or what determines the cosmos to exist (and what determines that and what determines that etc.) or alternatively who willed the cosmos into existence.

I certainly don

[doubting_tommy]

Hi Wyguy, I know what you mean. This is exhausting! I

[doubting_tommy]

Meaning, no matter what evidence I can give you, or how much, it will never be enough. You are of the mind, I believe, that it must take God to appear before you, slap you upside the head and yell, "I'M REAL!" before you will even consider Him. And nothing short of that will make you even think about changing your mind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I absolutely, 100% do not believe that it is a certainty that God does not exist. I do believe that, if God does exist, it would be very difficult to prove His existence with absolute certainty simply because of the sort of thing that God is supposed to be(it could be the case that God does exist, but that we simply will not or cannot know this for certain). I consider the God explanation as one of many different possibilities, and rank it according to how likely it seems to me to be true, when compared with the other options. So, for example, I think a deistic God is more likely than a personal God, and that a non-Christian personal God is more likely than the Christian God, and that no-God is more likely than some-God and so on.

He created them - He can defy them at will.

It

[doubting_tommy]

I have consistently been using the laws of physics as now proven and taught to make my case, while you have been using a bunch of "maybe's" and "could have's" to try and prove yours. Yet you find it "bizarre" that I won't take your faith as proof for anything.

If you think my position relies on