A logic line.

[eatheiun]

(only assumption) we are not figments in the dream of an over-imaginative entymologist or, [insert matrix or other false-reality idea here].
Something either exists, or it doesn't. Something cannot half-exist. If god exists, he must actually exist. No evidence for god exists. There is no reason to believe that god exists.

Comments

[glensc]

I confined it to the metaphysical alone to keep this simpler. But one could conclude that the "metaphysical" that caused the universe would be sentient by necessity due to the universe's fine tuning.

I'm not sure that one could conclude that, more speculate that it might. It's also possible to speculate that the universe has banged and crunched a number of times, each time it rebangs with slightly differing early changes and which, having the same laws of force, make it crunch either sooner or later than the present one we inhabit. Each incarnation causing what is percieved here as fine tuning it.

It's difficult to use words and concepts for something that is postulated as outside of time to be a creator of something as creator, in it's ordinary use, presuposes a time based framework.

You're applying naturalistic laws that govern THIS universe to the metaphysical, and the instance you're talking about is essentially the CREATION of these laws, so how could they already be applicable to the cause before they exist?

By a Big Crunch of a previous universe, that also obeyed those laws. That would seem a more plausable hypothesis ( to me ) the hypothesis of the existence of a metaphical sentinient Diety. Though I must conceeded that that may be my lack of ability to think of the first thing beyond my imagination and to others may only shift the question of so what sentinient metaphysical sentient Diety created the first universe. Thought it it could at each incarnation lesson the need for the such a great measure of sentience.

However it doesn't get around the outside of time problem, that is, by the earler defintion the Metaphysical Thing, that existed outside of time. Once the question has stepped across the barrier of outside of time I don't see why ( or possibly can't imagine such a thing as how ) that would lead to concluding sentinence, rather than many of all the possible universes being created at the same point, some not lasting long and some going on longer than ours will. Just as being hit in the eye by only one snowflake, in a bizzard does not prove that there was sentience aiming that one at me because the others didn't.

Hmm that reminds me, only 2 hours sleep over 48, I need to step away from the keyboard and put my eyelids down soon ;)

Ariroc, this includes all descriptions of God, not just a creationist perspective. It is possible to hold naturalistic views, such as the acceptance of evolution, but still concede that the universe's fine tuning is due to a deity.

I thought we were already at a point where we'd agreed that neither viewpoint could be empirically proved, by logic, philospphy or science, and that we were actually discussing plausabilities, pretty much knowing no-one is going to be able completely altered the value of plausability that another places on each arugument, but may give an insite as to why each may find one point of view more plausable than another. My point in the section you seem to be reffering to was that whatever atribute than one may err attribute to a possible Metaphysical sentiniet diety are probably wrong, andthat even if one beleves their had to have been a metapysical sentiniet diety creator that wouldn't lead to logically it _must_ continue to exist after a creation event, or that it must have the same attribute it had before.

[ariroc]

I was actually just testing the water a bit. Giving myself an opportunity to toy with different versions of the same idea. Nothing worth doing should be done half-assed. More over I'm kind of inserting myself into the middle of a conversation (sorry..) It's an enjoyable subject, fun to tinker with.

The main problem with the notion of god is that those who would find reason to accept a god need very little, if any convincing to do so... and of course... absolutely no evidence at all seems to be needed to indoctrinate one.. So we are fighting a rather one-sided battle by taking on the task of providing evidence where they required none in the first place.

My personal feelings on dealing with hardcore creationists, is not unlike the boy who got himself stuck in the pool jet... Why on earth...? Although probably much more understandable, still baffles.
The problem becomes more complicated by the mere fact that looking for evidence either for or against God only has a one-track solution. That is.. Only if you find evidence for the existence of God, which will be happily accepted.. where as any refutation, no matter how solid is met with a wall of 'faith' Perhaps the true nature of the armor of god... being that it is intellectually indestructible.

I think we all agree- it can't be proven one way or the other.
So, supposing there was a creator who existed before possessed of some qualities of omnipotence. We should quantify god in a fitting manner. That god is all things, and no things. the literal alpha and omega. So If in creating the universe, all of the physical laws are obeyed, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed... would it be plausible to conclude that in order to create all things, he had to use himself up, perhaps entirely?