Thought Experiment

[Jack]

Then every time you say universi, you're saying all together in Latin.

[Kamehameha34]

You know what I'm referring to.

[Captain Chaos]

The replies suck.

If God is one of a series of events that result in the creation of the universe, then God didn't "create" the universe, God is just one of many steps.

But you also defined God as having created the universe.

That only means God is the cause (one cause) and the universe was created (one effect).

The two are clearly contradictory from even a logical standpoint.

Sorry, Captain Chaos, I don't accept that kind of loose fluff in an opening post.

Fonce, have you created anything?

[Jack]

You know what I'm referring to.

And here I thought you were Mister Literal-Definition guy.
Well then, all those times you refused to accept my definition of a concept, you knew what I meant.

[Kamehameha34]

If God is one of a series of events that result in the creation of the universe, then God didn't "create" the universe, God is just one of many steps.

If the "god" step was missing, there'd be no universe. The universe is dependent on each step.

Just as you "fire" a gun when you pull a trigger, even through the gunpowder, pressure, etc. was already there, the supposed god "created" our universe.

[Kamehameha34]

And here I thought you were Mister Literal-Definition guy.
Well then, all those times you refused to accept my definition of a concept, you knew what I meant.

Yes. This isn't a semantical debate, though.

[Jack]

Who can say? Perhaps the "god step" is redundant, or unnecessary. Remove a domino and the last domino may still reach far enough to trigger the one after. Without knowing what the "god step" is, there's nothing intelligent to say about it.

[Captain Chaos]

Since the subject is gods, then we should use create in its theological sense, to make something out of nothing. Nearly every modern god I'm aware of is postulated as a first cause, the creator of all that is. This would suppose its ability to create something out of nothing while at the same time failing to account for the pre-creation presence of the god itself.


I would agree. Yet this could easily be credited to our limited imaginations and inability to conceive of such a thing. We only know in our current universe we have yet to discover a way to create something from nothing. Energy and matter are neither created or destroyed, they just change states.

I just think that the traditional theistic view of gods is bonkers. I am happy to defend the deistic concept of a naturalistic god(s), but not the traditional theistic kind. What kind a god would need worship?

[Kamehameha34]

Who can say? Perhaps the "god step" is redundant, or unnecessary. Remove a domino and the last domino may still reach far enough to trigger the one after. Without knowing what the "god step" is, there's nothing intelligent to say about it.

Are there only a finite amount of steps that are not redundant?

[Captain Chaos]

Who can say? Perhaps the "god step" is redundant, or unnecessary. Remove a domino and the last domino may still reach far enough to trigger the one after. Without knowing what the "god step" is, there's nothing intelligent to say about it.

I think we should distinquish between necessary causes and necessary consequences. A god may not be a necessary cause of our universe. However, I maintain that godhood is a likely necessary consequence of infinite emergence.

If we think that god(s) exists, then we have to ask, does a universe that looks designed have a greater than 50% probability of having been created by a god, rather than occuring naturally?

Think of it this way...

People make square stones. Square stones also occur naturally. If we see a square stone, do we just assume that it occurred naturally, because a person was not a necessary cause?

[shunyadragon]

I just think that the traditional theistic view of gods is bonkers. I am happy to defend the deistic concept of a naturalistic god(s), but not the traditional theistic kind. What kind a god would need worship?

The problem with the traditional theistic view like Christianity is the depict a hands-on God with in a very narrow framework, for which there is no evidence today for this.

The problem with a strictly deistic natural uninvolved god or gods, they would be just another domino or dominos in a sequence of events. If a deisitic God or some Gods were missing the sequence of dominos, they are likely redundent enough that nothing would change. It is like the turtles all the way down argument, if one or two turtles were missing it would be of no consquence.

On a strictly human naturalist plan and worldview there is no need for a God or Gods especially if they were toatally uninvolved deistic entities. Many sequences of dominos would still roll on in the sequence of events in cosmic history.

My belief of God is not based on necessity, but pn the apparent evidence for the Baha'i revelation and its predictive and expalnitory power for the nature of existence and humanity in time and place. The Baha'i view of God is unknowable and reflects the nature of existence as a very natural God, but is involved in revelation in the cyclic evolving nature of the human spirit in harmony with the physical natural evolution.

[Kamehameha34]

But the nature of an infinite regress is that which requires an infinite amount of necessary "dominos". If one were missing, the end product* would not exist, or at least be the same.

With an infinite amount of necessary steps, it's almost certain (meaning infinitessimally small chance for failure) that a "god" was one of them - according to Cappy's equation for trial probability.


*I say that our universe was the "end product" because it is the only end product that we are concerned with. Of course, if the expansion and creation of our universe had caused something else to happen, that would have continued the regress.