Hard to say until you define "God". We know something about the universe, but don't know a whole lot about whatever this God creature is supposed to be like.

Please describe God in as much detail as possible, and then we can continue the discussion based on assuming that your description is correct.

For thread purposes, my definition is the traditional Christian one as outlined in the scriptures. Ex: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent.

Hope that helps.

You're going to have to be far more specific than that. The universe itself could be described as omniscient (it contains all of the information in the universe), omnipotent (it contains all events in the universe and nothing can happen without it) and omnipresent (obviously).

What makes this God so different?

The traditional Christian description of God is so vague that it's useless. Please give us a useful description.

I think for purposes of this thread the definition is sufficient.

Remember, the question is which explanation is more likely?

Another way of asking the question is comparing the naturalistic explanation vs the traditional Christian explanation.

Hope that helps a little - I don't people bogged down by getting any more specific than I have already been.

you forgot Omnivorous.

That was a good one Dave.

It still works. The universe contains everything and has therefore consumed everything.

“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” ― Carl Sagan

That is another way of explaining my position.

... is infinitely more likely that a self-existent, infinitely complex being (which we have never observed).

Careful, the universe may be infinite. And there may be an infinite number of infinite universes.

Whether those infinities are countable or not, I cannot say, but I think it will matter in our calculations.

Still waiting on a detailed description of God.

What is the difference between an infinite number of universes or one universe that includes everything? Is it just semantics or are you just distinguishing between the observable universe and anything outside of that?

Absolutely

You are really going with these questions they are hurting my head, they are both uncaused according to me.

Interesting answer - I am not sure I have heard that argued.

Well it makes sense to me even though I dont completely believe in a god I do think the universe always was and the energy or whatever that makes God always was along with it there was no start like the bible says if you believe the bible. But at the same time I do acknowledge things like evolution more than I used to instead of creationism from a god.

There is no assumption - it was a question. One of the mother of all questions.

It wasn't an assumption - it was a question.

I'm not sure caused or uncaused is the proper word, but think I know what you are saying. If I'm understanding you correctly, I would say an uncaused universe that puts things in order is not too plausible by chaos and accident, especially with entropy in place (with or without the sun- closed or open system).


This may better help explain something about the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

And a highly organized intelligent uncaused God is at all plausible by chaos and accident?

Sorry, the uncased universe seems far more likely than an uncaused God under those terms.

You are bang on.

I believe this to be correct;

1 Collossians 1-15
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

John 1:3
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Romans 1:21-25
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Romans 1:20
"Ever since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—God’s eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through the things God has made. So humans are without excuse."

Do you also believe:

Leviticus 20:9

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Or Jesus' claim that he did not come to bring peace?
Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Can you make an argument without quoting scripture? You place great reliance on texts that were written by man, not God, and decades after the fact without any actual eyewitnesses.

Now that takes great faith, it is not God you are putting faith in, it the the folks that produced the texts.

Have you ever wondered about that?

No I believe that to be God's word spoken through men.

Why do you believe that the texts are accurate?

I think it's very efficiently put,rebel, your question.

The chicken or the egg first fallacy is what you're talking about. When this has come up in the past, we found we were asking a question that doesn't make sense. I don't believe in much of anything, but I do believe in the power of is.

What is is.

I have seen over 5,000 original documents in person from original scrolls, and fragments. All of them true to the translations existing today. I was able to view them in person. There are many more..in fact more manuscripts and original documents of antiquity proofing the text than any document in history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_SGHPxnN8g

Unlike the BOM the bible is archaeologically accurate, historically accurate. It is well known that scientists use the bible as a guidebook to make many site discoveries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxHYh3QZbTI

You can see all of the coins, people, towns, plants, trees, places that the bible mentions, war sites, even the site of Sodom of Gomorrah (yes with a layer of ash on it). When I left Mormonism I took a look at this book and video, then did my own due diligence;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08

bekah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have seen over 5,000 original documents in
> person from original scrolls, and fragments. All
> of them true to the translations existing today.

Wow, how impressive for you to be the only person existing that's seen 5,000 original bible documents and original scrolls and fragments.
Where are you hiding them?
Because bible scholars, you know, regularly report that no original bible documents, scrolls, or fragments exist.
You should go public with your original scrolls and documents and fragments -- it would be the sensation of the millenium! And you'd be rich beyond your wildest dreams!

Or...were you not being honest (or simply mistaken)?
Yeah, that seems far more likely.


Seems you have a fair bit more "due diligence" to do.

Seems to me that matter (the elements) given enough time and in combination with other variables such as heat, cold, gravity, etc. could combine to create new and more complex possibilities.

This evolution of simple to ever more complex could lead to first and simplest life forms. The process of simple to complex could then evolve into ever more complex and advanced life forms.

That was my stab in the dark to shed some light on this subject.

Maybe "cause" or lack thereof is only a human idea. Maybe cause irrelevant on the cosmic scale of things.

That may be true but is a very unsatisfying answer. If I had that belief it would discourage me from thinking about these imponderable matters.

But then you could ponder a universe where cause is irrelevant.

In this specific area, as science advances, the likelihood of an uncaused universe decreases.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/does-science-argue-or-against-god

TMSH nli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In this specific area, as science advances, the
> likelihood of an uncaused universe decreases.
>
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy
> /does-science-argue-or-against-god

From that link:

"The latest science says we shouldn't be [here]. It says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero."

What a load of dishonest crap.

It's getting smaller all the time.

Neither is very likely.
Though the latter more so than the former.

What's more likely than either of those is a universe that began from some kind of "cause," though we don't know what it was yet.

There is, of course, no reason to assume or believe that "cause" was some imagined "uncaused god" thing.

My personal thoughts are as follows.

My premise is that there had to be something, rather than nothing, because nothing is something.

That something had to at minimum, include space.

I cannot explain why space had to include the elements and properties we find in space, only that it did.

These elements and properties converged 13.7 billion years ago, in what is known as the Big Bang, which ultimately led to the formation of our sun and earth.

I believe that abiogenesis and evolution explains our existence today.

The apologists will say, how did these elements and properties come into existence?

My best answer I can give is I dont know, but possibly the elements and properties are inherent in space.

These thoughts lead me to conclude, that God is not a necessary explanation, because it avoids the problems of an uncaused God.

PLEASE NOTE:

I do not think my answer is satisfactory by any means, but I find the other option far less satisfactory.

Posted by donbagley: "The chicken or the egg first fallacy is what you're talking about. When this has come up in the past, we found we were asking a question that doesn't make sense. I don't believe in much of anything, but I do believe in the power of is. What is is.
---

P: I read the book of answers to difficult questions, written by the credentialed "Smartest Person in the World".

She answered that the egg came before the chicken, because you know what a chicken looks and acts like when it is born, but you have no assurance what the egg contains because it might be a mutant, and thereby begin a new species (or something to that effect).

God was caused I change my view on that.

You present two competing hypotheses:

1 - The Universe is uncaused.
2 - An uncaused God caused the Universe.

Of the two, hypothesis 1 has the fewest assumptions. The addition of God needlessly multiplies entities and does not contribute anything towards solving the existential question. Hence, we use Occam's razor to discount hypothesis 2, and therefore conclude that that hypothesis 1 is more likely.

It's self evident that the universe exists. It's there every time you wake up in the morning. It's more real than coffee.

God is a whole other thing. To some people, he's more real than the universe. But what do the other animals think? Why aren't we asking chimps and apes with sign language? I would think they could give us an unbiased answer. I'd trust them over "prophets" any day.

First what do you mean by uncaused? Do you mean spontaneous or do you mean self existent?

If you mean spontaneous than that is entirely possible for both the universe or a god. Afterall by your admission you subscribe to the belief that our existence is spontaneous.

If you mean self existent than you are going to have to ditch the scientific realm and jump into philosophy. Simply speaking no thing has ever been observed to be self existent. There is no data, there is nothing to back up that claim.

A universe.

The universe was likely caused, though as Hie pointed out, we don't clearly know by what yet.

God was also caused, by humans who needed behavioral tools for commanding groups of humans larger than a clan.

There are God myths in every culture.

Maybe one or more of them is actually true.

On the other hand, maybe they are all myths.

Wait, that couldn't be true, I don't want that to be true.

The Greek philosopher Epicurus’s old questions about God as related this this subject are yet unanswered:

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

From Wiki

The problem of evil begs the question and in my mind is flawed as an argument against god. Simply put how would a human know what an all powerful, all present, all good, all knowing being would consider good or evil. And if, as is done in Mormonism, god isn't all powerful or all good than paradox resolves itself pretty quickly.


Epicurus, has disallowed only one type of god with the paradox of evil.