Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Members Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Scholairebochts Blog.
An Open Letter to Atheists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Haven" data-source="post: 135085" data-attributes="member: 5537"><p>Lets look at the flaws in your curated "necessary attributes":</p><p></p><p>Timelessness and Spacelessness: The claim that time and space “began” at the Big Bang is based on general relativity, but quantum cosmology models (such as the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal, which I've mentioned before) suggest that time may not have a distinct beginning, but could be emergent from more fundamental, timeless quantum conditions. In such models, spacetime is a derived concept, not requiring a timeless or spaceless "cause."</p><p></p><p>Immateriality: Asserting that the cause must be immaterial assumes a dualistic ontology (mind/matter, spirit/body) without empirical justification. It’s entirely plausible that the cause of our universe is physical but exists in a different form (e.g., a quantum vacuum, multiverse field, or higher-dimensional brane) rather than a supernatural, immaterial entity.</p><p></p><p>Uncaused and Necessary: The rejection of infinite regress is philosophical, not empirical. Also, asserting that a “necessary being” must exist shifts the problem: why is <em>that</em> being exempt from causality? Declaring it “necessary” is a metaphysical label, not a demonstrated fact.</p><p></p><p>Powerful: "Power" here is anthropomorphic. The quantum vacuum, for instance, can give rise to particles and energy fluctuations — not through "will" or "power," but through probabilistic laws. Something can give rise to the universe without intent or force, just by obeying natural laws.</p><p></p><p>Intelligent and Fine-Tuned: Apparent fine-tuning is an illusion caused by selection bias (we're here to observe it because we live in a universe that permits life).</p><p></p><p>Category Error: To assign human-like attributes (intelligence, will, intent) to the cause of the universe is a category mistake — projecting familiar traits onto what is a physical, impersonal, origin.</p><p></p><p>The rest of your argument is dead on arrival. The appeal to God as the “best explanation” for the universe is just not compelling, as it relies on your philosophical preferences rather than demonstrable necessity. While the universe may have had a beginning and appears law-governed and fine-tuned, these features do not require an intelligent cause. Natural processes — including quantum events, multiverse models, and emergent laws — offer plausible or evidence-based alternatives. The existence of consciousness and morality is being explored by science through evolutionary and neurological frameworks. Again we do not need to jump a "divine source" just because we dont currently understand all of it.</p><p></p><p>Above all, pointing to areas where science currently lacks answers does not justify inserting a supernatural explanation - it's a fundamental, basic, error.</p><p></p><p>We do not need jump to extraordinary explanations like gods to bridge current gaps in knowledge.</p><p></p><p>If you have anything new to reply with, that's actually intellectually interesting and based on empirical evidence and reasoning, I'll reply.</p><p></p><p></p><hr /></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Haven, post: 135085, member: 5537"] Lets look at the flaws in your curated "necessary attributes": Timelessness and Spacelessness: The claim that time and space “began” at the Big Bang is based on general relativity, but quantum cosmology models (such as the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal, which I've mentioned before) suggest that time may not have a distinct beginning, but could be emergent from more fundamental, timeless quantum conditions. In such models, spacetime is a derived concept, not requiring a timeless or spaceless "cause." Immateriality: Asserting that the cause must be immaterial assumes a dualistic ontology (mind/matter, spirit/body) without empirical justification. It’s entirely plausible that the cause of our universe is physical but exists in a different form (e.g., a quantum vacuum, multiverse field, or higher-dimensional brane) rather than a supernatural, immaterial entity. Uncaused and Necessary: The rejection of infinite regress is philosophical, not empirical. Also, asserting that a “necessary being” must exist shifts the problem: why is [I]that[/I] being exempt from causality? Declaring it “necessary” is a metaphysical label, not a demonstrated fact. Powerful: "Power" here is anthropomorphic. The quantum vacuum, for instance, can give rise to particles and energy fluctuations — not through "will" or "power," but through probabilistic laws. Something can give rise to the universe without intent or force, just by obeying natural laws. Intelligent and Fine-Tuned: Apparent fine-tuning is an illusion caused by selection bias (we're here to observe it because we live in a universe that permits life). Category Error: To assign human-like attributes (intelligence, will, intent) to the cause of the universe is a category mistake — projecting familiar traits onto what is a physical, impersonal, origin. The rest of your argument is dead on arrival. The appeal to God as the “best explanation” for the universe is just not compelling, as it relies on your philosophical preferences rather than demonstrable necessity. While the universe may have had a beginning and appears law-governed and fine-tuned, these features do not require an intelligent cause. Natural processes — including quantum events, multiverse models, and emergent laws — offer plausible or evidence-based alternatives. The existence of consciousness and morality is being explored by science through evolutionary and neurological frameworks. Again we do not need to jump a "divine source" just because we dont currently understand all of it. Above all, pointing to areas where science currently lacks answers does not justify inserting a supernatural explanation - it's a fundamental, basic, error. We do not need jump to extraordinary explanations like gods to bridge current gaps in knowledge. If you have anything new to reply with, that's actually intellectually interesting and based on empirical evidence and reasoning, I'll reply. [HR][/HR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
How Dangerous is Israel?
Started by Anderson
Today at 4:04 AM
Replies: 1
Nationalist Politics
Charlie Kirk Shot Dead ~ RIP
Started by Anderson
Yesterday at 3:29 PM
Replies: 92
Nationalist Politics
J
Has anyone else kinda lost the will to live ?
Started by Jay Homer Simpson
Yesterday at 12:30 PM
Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
The 2023 National Party Coup D'état or Split: My Understanding of it
Started by BelfastRatepayer
Saturday at 12:59 PM
Replies: 28
Nationalist Politics
RTE and Virgin - 2 Cheeks of the same.....
Started by Anderson
Friday at 3:46 AM
Replies: 11
Nationalist Politics
Popular Threads
Ukraine.
Started by Declan
Feb 21, 2022
Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
Started by jpc
Nov 7, 2022
Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
Started by Anderson
Feb 26, 2023
Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
Started by Charlene
Sep 14, 2021
Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
Started by Declan
Dec 30, 2024
Replies: 2K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
Started by Anderson
Jul 29, 2022
Replies: 2K
Climate Change
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Scholairebochts Blog.
An Open Letter to Atheists
Top
Bottom