Termie, Ati We Are Living Inside a Computer Simulated Universe

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

One can also approach the question from the opposite direction.  Of strangeness.

What's the difference between a believer that an uncreated supernatural created the world and one who believes it came from nothing?

The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity.  And says it came from nothing.  And created something.

The other says a justified entity came from nothing?

Whose view is less weird?  The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?

[kadame]

The physical creator argument can go on ad infinitum with much the same right some ascribe to an eternal let alone yet to be proven deity.

No it cannot. We know matter never creates itself. We need a cause for why it exists, therefore. We also know that matter began. We need a cause for how that happened. We will need the same for the immaterial cause, once it is established that it began to exist.

The only difference is there is already an objective experience of the physical.  It takes the smaller leap of faith to believe. 

The only objective experience is that the physical needs a cause.

A physical creator is more consistent with observations than the deity.  Whatever claims one makes for a creator, there is always going to be a stronger claim to the same argument for a physical one.

A physical creator is the tautology claimed before and has zero to do with observations of the universe, that it is finite in time, space and matter. It is just a restatement that the universe is eternal and therefore god. Good luck proving that, if "proof" is what you are seeking as you claimed.

Outside of unprovable claims, nobody has witnessed a deity create anything. 

And NOBODY has witnessed a physical being create ANYTHING from nothing.  Plus the claim is just the good old fashioned, "Material reality is the ONLY reality because its the only one I experience" We can deduce another existence besides our own from facts we know about our own. Like the fact that our being is contingent.

If nothing comes out of nothing.  Suppose there is a good reason to believe in a deity.  The question of what creates the deity remains.

That makes sense if you assume there was ever nothing. A deity means there was never nothingness, but always something. If there was nothing, then nothing is what there would be today. No, actually, there could be no "today" or time or anything. Just nothing.

The exercise ultimately leads to unfalsifiable territory where nothing new is conveyed or learned.

Stated by fatwa, if I can't disprove God, he must be false. I dont understand why you dont see how many unsupported claims you make yourself while accusing theism of the same.

The claim for science's exclusive domain is on objective reality.  The field is wide open(only limited by the number of observers) for subjective reality.

Another fatwa--Every claim must be established except those I need but can't support...those ones should be just be accepted by faith. That's what this sounds like to me.

[kadame]

One can also approach the question from the opposite direction.  Of strangeness.

What's the difference between a believer that an uncreated supernatural created the world and one who believes it came from nothing?

The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity.  And says it came from nothing.  And created something.

Termie, that is a contradiction. If it is uncreated how did it "come from nothing"?

The other says a justified entity came from nothing?

Justified is a big word. "Justification" here is that the universe created itself from nothing before it existed? C'mon Termie.  Did you get this from Steve Hawking's "gravity created the universe which created gravity"? If that is justification, what exactly cannot be justified?

Whose view is less weird?  The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?

Without a doubt. The person who claims that the universe created itself from nothing. If "strange" is the medal here, he must be given his due reward. Or that something came from absolute nothingness without a cause. He has more faith than the one that moves mountains, this one creates ordered universes right from nothingness. Just like that! A believer in God just needs to know that matter must be created to believe in a creator beyond matter--that is what immaterial means. That is what everything he knows about the universe tells him...Everything.  And all the opponent has in response is an incredible act of faith, that just this once, matter did something impossible--It just started to exist.

[bittertruth]

Termie,
God is reality.
As a Reality, God cannot be unreal.
Also need to understand that physical reality is not the ultimate reality.

[kadame]

Termie,
God is reality.
As a Reality, God cannot be unreal.
Also need to understand that physical reality is not the ultimate reality.

Just needed to spell-check that for you, kidogo. Hope you dont mind. Indeed, Bittertruth. There are only two possibilities. Absolute reality or absolute nothingness. 'God' is just the human word for the former. It's appreciating that there must be a reality capable of bringing real things from nothingness by sheer grant of existence. Such a being has existence as of its very nature. Not existing is simply not possible for this being. In other words, it is existence itself. Or being. Or reality, as you put it.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

In a nutshell.

Lets shift the problem of who creates an entity we all agree exists to who creates the creator and ignore the question by granting magical attributes to him.
 
The question still remains.

Every attribute argued for the deity, is weird.  Yet it is, is necessarily on firmer footing when applied to a physical universe.  Because this universe's existence is less contentious.  In this thread, there is no question about it.

One can simply argue physical reality need not be created.  It just is.  You just need to look outside.

While this argument does not advance any knowledge.  It does less to muddy the waters than shifting the same attributes to a realm that is already contentious.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie,
God is reality.
As a Reality, God cannot be unreal.
Also need to understand that physical reality is not the ultimate reality.

Those are mere assertions. Granted, repeated uncritically enough times, they take on the veneer of truth.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The physical creator argument can go on ad infinitum with much the same right some ascribe to an eternal let alone yet to be proven deity.

No it cannot. We know matter never creates itself. We need a cause for why it exists, therefore. We also know that matter began. We need a cause for how that happened. We will need the same for the immaterial cause, once it is established that it began to exist.

The only difference is there is already an objective experience of the physical.  It takes the smaller leap of faith to believe. 

The only objective experience is that the physical needs a cause.

A physical creator is more consistent with observations than the deity.  Whatever claims one makes for a creator, there is always going to be a stronger claim to the same argument for a physical one.

A physical creator is the tautology claimed before and has zero to do with observations of the universe, that it is finite in time, space and matter. It is just a restatement that the universe is eternal and therefore god. Good luck proving that, if "proof" is what you are seeking as you claimed.

Outside of unprovable claims, nobody has witnessed a deity create anything. 

And NOBODY has witnessed a physical being create ANYTHING from nothing.  Plus the claim is just the good old fashioned, "Material reality is the ONLY reality because its the only one I experience" We can deduce another existence besides our own from facts we know about our own. Like the fact that our being is contingent.

If nothing comes out of nothing.  Suppose there is a good reason to believe in a deity.  The question of what creates the deity remains.

That makes sense if you assume there was ever nothing. A deity means there was never nothingness, but always something. If there was nothing, then nothing is what there would be today. No, actually, there could be no "today" or time or anything. Just nothing.

The exercise ultimately leads to unfalsifiable territory where nothing new is conveyed or learned.

Stated by fatwa, if I can't disprove God, he must be false. I dont understand why you dont see how many unsupported claims you make yourself while accusing theism of the same.

The claim for science's exclusive domain is on objective reality.  The field is wide open(only limited by the number of observers) for subjective reality.

Another fatwa--Every claim must be established except those I need but can't support...those ones should be just be accepted by faith. That's what this sounds like to me.

What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist?  Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

One can also approach the question from the opposite direction.  Of strangeness.

What's the difference between a believer that an uncreated supernatural created the world and one who believes it came from nothing?

The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity.  And says it came from nothing.  And created something.

Termie, that is a contradiction. If it is uncreated how did it "come from nothing"?

The other says a justified entity came from nothing?

Justified is a big word. "Justification" here is that the universe created itself from nothing before it existed? C'mon Termie.  Did you get this from Steve Hawking's "gravity created the universe which created gravity"? If that is justification, what exactly cannot be justified?

Whose view is less weird?  The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?

Without a doubt. The person who claims that the universe created itself from nothing. If "strange" is the medal here, he must be given his due reward. Or that something came from absolute nothingness without a cause. He has more faith than the one that moves mountains, this one creates ordered universes right from nothingness. Just like that! A believer in God just needs to know that matter must be created to believe in a creator beyond matter--that is what immaterial means. That is what everything he knows about the universe tells him...Everything.  And all the opponent has in response is an incredible act of faith, that just this once, matter did something impossible--It just started to exist.

I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.

One can also approach the question from the opposite direction.  Of strangeness.

What's the difference between a believer that a contentious supernatural is uncreated and creates the world and one who believes that the world is uncreated?

The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity.  And says it came from nothing.  And created something.

The other says a justified entity came from nothing?

Whose view is less weird?  The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?

[kadame]

What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist?  Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?

The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist?  Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?

The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?

Which one?  I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused. 

The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy.  Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models.  It is neither created nor destroyed.

[kadame]

I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.

One can also approach the question from the opposite direction.  Of strangeness.

What's the difference between a believer that a contentious supernatural is uncreated and creates the world and one who believes that the world is uncreated?

The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity.  And says it came from nothing.  And created something.

The other says a justified entity came from nothing?

Whose view is less weird?  The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?

The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter. The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.

There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.

One can also approach the question from the opposite direction.  Of strangeness.

What's the difference between a believer that a contentious supernatural is uncreated and creates the world and one who believes that the world is uncreated?

The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity.  And says it came from nothing.  And created something.

The other says a justified entity came from nothing?

Whose view is less weird?  The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?

The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.

The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.

There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.

Looking at the red.  One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity. 

Supposing that is true.  When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it? 

Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?

[kadame]

What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist?  Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?

The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?

Which one?  I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused. 

The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy.  Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models.  It is neither created nor destroyed.

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

[kadame]

I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.

One can also approach the question from the opposite direction.  Of strangeness.

What's the difference between a believer that a contentious supernatural is uncreated and creates the world and one who believes that the world is uncreated?

The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity.  And says it came from nothing.  And created something.

The other says a justified entity came from nothing?

Whose view is less weird?  The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?

The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.

The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.

There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.

Looking at the red.  One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity. 

Supposing that is true.  When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it? 

Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?

Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist?  Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?

The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?

Which one?  I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused. 

The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy.  Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models.  It is neither created nor destroyed.

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

[kadame]

What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist?  Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?

The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?

Which one?  I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused. 

The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy.  Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models.  It is neither created nor destroyed.

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.

The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.

The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.

There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.

Looking at the red.  One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity. 

Supposing that is true.  When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it? 

Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?

Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?

It's just extending the logic on the same premise.  It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause. 

Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?

Which one?  I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused. 

The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy.  Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models.  It is neither created nor destroyed.

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.

The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy.  Matter is interchangeable with energy.  I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they are not.  But I don't know.

[kadame]

The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?

Which one?  I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused. 

The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy.  Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models.  It is neither created nor destroyed.

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.

The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy.  Matter is interchangeable with energy.  I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they are not.  But I don't know.

Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?