Neccesary existence, why?

[Kelp(p)]

Back to my point in another thread: What sort of evidence would you expect to find for the God of the Bible? If He is not a part of the created universe He won't leave a shadow (so to speak). Science has nothing to say about the existence or non existence of God.

I wasn't just talking about science. I mean evidence like an unambiguous, undeniable display of miraculous power. God coming on the major news networks or something, to put it in slightly silly terms. Maybe someday I'll go back to deciding that the Gospels are good enough in that category, but right now I'm just not sure.

[seer]

I wasn't just talking about science. I mean evidence like an unambiguous, undeniable display of miraculous power. God coming on the major news networks or something, to put it in slightly silly terms. Maybe someday I'll go back to deciding that the Gospels are good enough in that category, but right now I'm just not sure.

"To whom much is given, much is required." We assume that a greater display of God's power will more easily cause us to love Him. But why does that follow - what if it actually caused us to hate or reject Him more? Then we would receive a greater judgement. Perhaps God's hiddenness is saving countless human beings from a worse fate.

[Mountain Man]

If a proposition is more likely to be true than the other options, then one ought to chose it over the others, yes?

Yes, but Ockham's razor says nothing about which propositions are more likely to be true. It only says which propositions are easier to test.

[Teallaura]

I'm not sure I buy that, but I guess I don't have to counter it.

Fair enough.

According to Lawrence Krauss, the singularity that became the Big Bang arouse from a sea of unstable particles and antiparticles. And anyway, from what I've seen, physicists tend to get irritated when people try to use their theories to point to an absolute beginning of everything. I don't see what that couldn't have existed eternally. I know you don't except that given the above, of course.

Heh, as I recall many physicists originally came into the Big Bang tent kicking and screaming because of its theistic implications.

But even so, so what? The existence of a beginning logically requires a cause and refutes a 'steady state' or self existent universe. The BB isn't just 'lookie, now we have matter' event - its the beginning of physics as we understand it, space, time, matter, energy - the entire ball of wax. For the universe to be self existent it would have to pre-exist the BB and there is no way to know what, if anything, did. Then you get back to causality and the whole thing becomes problematic.

Something eternal must pre-exist the known universe - either God or some proto-self existent thingie. But whereas God is a Person and can act, the PSET (for want of a better term - mine is at least cute! ) is inanimate (since we are presuming it to be the universe, I'd presume in a different form - this one's more yours than mine) thingie (technical term ) and now you run into big causality issues. Not to mention the whole thing is a mere assumption - one lacking any evidentiary validity.

So if we toss evidentiary validity and just assume that a self-existent universe is possible then we can assume the PSET - but I think we just ran aground of the a priori fallacy.

It's true that extending quantum uncertainty to the macro level is currently problematic. But ok, let's go back to one universe.

Yep, and I don't think it's just 'currently' but I'm good with single universe.

Unimportant side rant: technically, the multiverse should be part of the universe and not the other way around. Universe means 'everything' and there can't be multiples of absolutely everything.

[Kelp(p)]

Yes, but Ockham's razor says nothing about which propositions are more likely to be true. It only says which propositions are easier to test.

Seeing as how it was invented to solve problems in medieval scholasticism, I feel ok using it to think about theological questions.

[Jedidiah]

I wasn't just talking about science. I mean evidence like an unambiguous, undeniable display of miraculous power. God coming on the major news networks or something, to put it in slightly silly terms. Maybe someday I'll go back to deciding that the Gospels are good enough in that category, but right now I'm just not sure.

Sorry, I specifically said the God of the Bible. You are talking about some other God. Try again. Tassman has shown himself afraid to answer this question. But that is based on fear. I see you as actually seeking the truth (unlike the sniper Tassman). What sort of evidence would you expect to find from the God of the Bible? He is not subject to the universe in any way.

[Jedidiah]

Seeing as how it was invented to solve problems in medieval scholasticism, I feel ok using it to think about theological questions.

That is still a problem for you. I look at the world, it appears to be designed. No other assumptions needed.

Pure naturalism looks at the world and not only has to explain how it got here, but has to demonstrate the the evident design is false.

[Kelp(p)]

Sorry, I specifically said the God of the Bible. You are talking about some other God. Try again. Tassman has shown himself afraid to answer this question. But that is based on fear. I see you as actually seeking the truth (unlike the sniper Tassman). What sort of evidence would you expect to find from the God of the Bible? He is not subject to the universe in any way.

The fact that the God of the Bible won't do something like that makes me suspicious in the first place, however...

The Resurrection would be the main evidence, though I'm not quite ready to have that debate again, not least of all because I lost a lot of my old apologetics books in a house flood. The other proof I expect would be a structure to the universe such that we can see pretty clearly that we the universe requires a Creator. I'd be a far happier man if I were a Creationist or IDist. But since I'm not, I resort to the ontological questions in these threads.

[Kelp(p)]

That is still a problem for you. I look at the world, it appears to be designed. No other assumptions needed.

Pure naturalism looks at the world and not only has to explain how it got here, but has to demonstrate the the evident design is false.

Sorry, I don't agree that it looks designed.

[Truthseeker]

Seeing as how it was invented to solve problems in medieval scholasticism, I feel ok using it to think about theological questions.

Aristotle, quoted by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor wrote, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus . . . of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."

I do not regard Ockham's Razor as a way to choose the best conclusion among others. Rather, it is an economy thing. It saves time and other resources. Why argue whether we need to include unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, hobbits, etc., if there is agreement that evidence for them is no more than rather slight?

[Kelp(p)]

Aristotle, quoted by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor wrote, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus . . . of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."

Right. I was referring to the way Ockham used it. One can't restrict it's usefulness just to the sciences.

I do not regard Ockham's Razor as a way to choose the best conclusion among others. Rather, it is an economy thing. It saves time and other resources. Why argue whether we need to include unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, hobbits, etc., if there is agreement that evidence for them is no more than rather slight?

And some would put God in the same category. I'm siding with them, at least for the sake of argument.

[shunyadragon]

Because that would be a steady state universe - which evidence doesn't support. If it is self-existent then it should have neither beginning nor end - an eternal thing. God meets those conditions (thing or Person works); the universe does not.

An infinite and eternal physical existence that is self-existent is a distinct possibility.

Now, if you move to the multiverse model it gets outright silly. Assuming a self existent multiverse with the condition that all possibilities thereby exist then God necessarily exists (since both He and that poor whale from Hitchhiker's exist, the latter rather briefly) which probably rules out the multiverse and definitely rules it out as self-existent.

I believe in God, but it remains distinctly possible for an infinite eternal Quantum World to exist consisting of one or more multi-verses or one multi-verse with many possible universes, based on what we presently know in science. At present there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether our physical existence is infinite and eternal or finite and temporal. ALL possibilities is not necessarily a requirement for a physical existence constrained by Natural Laws that limit the possibilities.

[Adrift]

The fact that the God of the Bible won't do something like that makes me suspicious in the first place, however...

The Resurrection would be the main evidence, though I'm not quite ready to have that debate again, not least of all because I lost a lot of my old apologetics books in a house flood. The other proof I expect would be a structure to the universe such that we can see pretty clearly that we the universe requires a Creator. I'd be a far happier man if I were a Creationist or IDist. But since I'm not, I resort to the ontological questions in these threads.

Kelp, help me understand, a lot of the questions you're asking in these forums seem to be answered in apologetic books. I don't mean this maliciously, but have you read those books, or have you forgotten what they've said, or...?

[Tassman]

Back to my point in another thread: What sort of evidence would you expect to find for the God of the Bible? If He is not a part of the created universe He won't leave a shadow (so to speak). Science has nothing to say about the existence or non existence of God.

There’s no way for science to empirically verify a hypothetical, non-material entity such as a god. Such a 'being' could only be known if it chose to reveal itself. And, while some believers claim such an entity has already “revealed” itself, they cannot support this claim with any substantive evidence. Hence, to date, “God of the Bible”, or similar alleged immaterial entity, cannot be shown to exist. Such a being is not supported by credible evidence.

[Kelp(p)]

Kelp, help me understand, a lot of the questions you're asking in these forums seem to be answered in apologetic books. I don't mean this maliciously, but have you read those books, or have you forgotten what they've said, or...?

A combination.

Even back then I had a lot of problems with many of the arguments in books. Some of them I brought up on here, some of them I didn't or only in private because I didn't want to seem like a fake Christian.

It's been a long time and I've forgotten a lot (a good chunk of my research was never in books, but in online articles that I still need to get back to reading). Since joining Tweb the first time, a lot of my research shifted to more tangential areas like creationism or charismaticism or preterism or cults or Eastern Orthodoxy so I let my knowledge of central reasons for faith atrophy. Some of the apologetics books I bought and never got around to reading because I've always struggled with laziness and I have a lot of competing interests besides. I lost three-quarters of my library when our basement flooded. I'm just now getting back to a mental place where debating this stuff doesn't make me want to kill myself. I'm just now getting back to a place where my anger is under enough control to have discussions about it.

Does that help you understand?