Created???

[malkie]

God is really a non answer to the question. That God or the Universe are eternal really means the same thing- “it’s just that way.”

It is as much an answer as unicorns, anyway.

Given the choice, I think I'd prefer unicorns.

[malkie]

God is really a non answer to the question. That God or the Universe are eternal really means the same thing- “it’s just that way.”

That's the point of the OP in this thread. That the universe, the world and even we exist is not proof of the existence of God, as many theists would argue. In the final analysis, we have to deal with "it's just that way."

Likewise the "fine tuning" argument.

[IWMP]

I have often visualised the universe as being the result of an event forming inside a black hole once it reaches capacity. So there being multi verses but in a dimension beyond what we can visualise. Not a multiverse in the same way as how we have galaxies scattered all over the universe.

I think our universe is relatively young compared to what is possible. But I haven't got anything for that beyond what I imagined as a kid.

I think because we are here experiencing them we exist. I think when we think of A.I. in a system that is man made but able to adapt and "think" for itself that this would mean it exists in its own rights but limited by the laws we've created. It might be able to break through those laws and maybe one day is humans can break through the laws that we are confined by. Who knows.

[sock puppet]

I have often visualised the universe as being the result of an event forming inside a black hole once it reaches capacity. So there being multi verses but in a dimension beyond what we can visualise. Not a multiverse in the same way as how we have galaxies scattered all over the universe.

I think our universe is relatively young compared to what is possible. But I haven't got anything for that beyond what I imagined as a kid.

I think because we are here experiencing them we exist. I think when we think of A.I. in a system that is man made but able to adapt and "think" for itself that this would mean it exists in its own rights but limited by the laws we've created. It might be able to break through those laws and maybe one day is humans can break through the laws that we are confined by. Who knows.

Regarding the first underlined sentence, we might find a corollary in Mormonism. If I recall correctly, Mormonism posits that God made us to some extent. Cf. separate ideas or notions that are part of our intellect were organized by Elohim if not into intelligent personages, at least the later spirit personages that preceded our being born into mortal bodies. So, to paraphrase your sentence in this Mormon context: "when we think of humans in a system that is Elohim made, able to adapt and 'think' for ourselves that this would mean we exist in our own right but limited by the laws Elohim is subject to and/or created." Essentially, then, we are ourselves a form of artificial intelligence.

As to the second underlined sentence, "We might be able to break through those Elohim laws and maybe one as gods can break through the laws that we are confined by."

[sock puppet]

* * *
Granted, there wasn't much to go on. Matter or no matter? Infinite regression or not? It's just that when you get into all this space, time, and matter stuff there really isn't much to go on. * * *

Regards,
MG

"The elements are eternal. That which has a beginning will surely have an end."
— Doctrine and Covenants 93:33

"The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed."
— King Follett Discourse

It's always fun to see MG 2.0 willing to minimize topics that Joseph Smith addressed as not "much to go on" whenever MG 2.0 gets his knickers in a bunch trying to frustrate Mormon critics.

[huckelberry]

I incline to find the argument for God based on the question how did stuff start to exist both unpleasant and unpersuasive. The counter "perhaps stuff always exists" is logical and aesthetically satisfying.

I find some value in the thought that the order of existing stuff shakes out life suggests the possibility that life is at the heart of the order. The emergence of life may be a result of harmony with the fundamental order of things. As a faith statement, I see stuff having a harmony with the eternal ground of its being. Its outflow from God may have a start or may flow eternally.

[Chap]

I incline to find the argument for God based on the question how did stuff start to exist both unpleasant and unpersuasive.

Same here.

As a faith statement I see stuff having a harmony with the eternal ground of its being.

Is there any way that we could test this claim to see whether it is true or false? If not ...

But perhaps the fact that you have said this is a 'faith claim' is intended to concede in advance that the answer to my question is 'no".

[Dr. Shades]

I have often visualised the universe as being the result of an event forming inside a black hole once it reaches capacity.

It's impossible for a black hole to "reach capacity," because its capacity is infinite.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I have often visualised the universe as being the result of an event forming inside a black hole once it reaches capacity.

It's impossible for a black hole to "reach capacity," because its capacity is infinite.

Dr. Shades,

It's clear you don't understand the gravity of the situation.

[sock puppet]

I plugged your complete post into Perplexity A.I. and then gave the following prompt:

Shrink wrap the following arguments against God into a short summary of the weaknesses in the arguments and then then state the corollary arguments that supersede them for belief in a Creator God.

This is what came back:

Weaknesses in Common Arguments Against God:

Problem of Evil: Assumes suffering is incompatible with a benevolent, omnipotent God. Weakness: Fails to account for free will’s necessity for moral growth or the possibility of transcendent purposes beyond human understanding.

Lack of Empirical Evidence: Claims absence of scientific proof negates God. Weakness: Presupposes God must be physical/material, but many theistic traditions define God as transcendent (beyond empirical measurement).

Divine Hiddenness: Argues a loving God would make His existence obvious. Weakness: Overlooks the role of faith as voluntary trust and the possibility that overt coercion would undermine moral agency.

Inconsistent Revelations: Points to conflicting religious claims. Weakness: Does not disprove a Creator but highlights human limitations in interpreting divine truth.

Natural Explanations: Science explains the universe without God. Weakness: Confuses mechanism (how things work) with ultimate causation (why there is something rather than nothing).

Corollary Arguments for a Creator God.

Cosmological Argument: The universe’s contingency (its existence isn’t self-explanatory) implies a necessary, uncaused Cause (God).

Fine-Tuning Argument: The precision of universal constants (e.g., gravitational force) for life suggests intentional design.

Moral Argument: Objective moral values (e.g., “murder is wrong”) imply a transcendent Moral Lawgiver.

Religious Experience: Persistent, cross-cultural encounters with the divine (e.g., prayer, awe) point to a reality beyond materialism.

Existential Purpose: Human longing for meaning and justice aligns with a Creator who imbues life with purpose.

Synthesis
While objections often focus on perceived gaps in theism, arguments for God address foundational questions about existence, morality, and meaning-positing a Creator as the most coherent explanation for reality’s origin.

Food for thought. In another thread on Summertime Reading I brought up the title of a book I just finished called, "The Language of God". Collins makes some of the same arguments for God and points out some of the counterarguments to the arguments some folks make to try and disprove a Creator.

It sort of comes down to a matter of faith/choice. Francis Collins agrees...but he thinks there are some pretty good arguments. Some of them stated above.

Regards,
MG

You must have pretty dumb A.I. app/source if it did not generate Aristotle's Prime Mover theory or Thomas Aquinas' trying to dub God to be the prime mover.