In the Beginning...which one are you?

[Max Byzantium]

1. God created the Universe in 6, 24 hour days. (Young Earth view)

2. God created the Universe over billions of years. (Old Earth view)

3. God is behind the Big Bang, but allows the Universe to evolve based on the laws of physics and biology. (Theistic Evolution).

4. There is no God, he is construct of man. The Universe is a mathimatical probability. (Athiestic view).

Personally, I am number 3 guy.

[Pentecostal]

Loki:

There are no gods, so number four.

Okay, I respect your view , however, would you mind proving this statement

[Nyril]

Okay, I respect your view , however, would you mind proving this statement

Prove that there is a god. If I told you that there was a magical pink unicorn that required worshipping, you would ask me to prove the existence of the unicorn, and would be insulted if I demanded you prove that my invisible pink unicorn didn't exist.

[Amphigorey]

4. There is no God, he is construct of man. The Universe is a mathimatical probability. (Athiestic view).

I think there is no Supernatural realm, so that leaves #4. However, "mathematical probability" is a misnomer. There are laws and forces in effect, so its not a random process, its not mere combinatorics. And atheistic Cosmologists do vary quite a bit in their theories. Many will argue for infinite space with finite time in an infinite multiverse (and then argue that religion isn't parsimonious!). I'm more in the infinite space/time camp - the Big Bang was not an exceptional event (and spare me the Aristolelian infinite series problem).

[harvey1]

I think there is no Supernatural realm, so that leaves #4. However, "mathematical probability" is a misnomer. There are laws and forces in effect, so its not a random process, its not mere combinatorics. And atheistic Cosmologists do vary quite a bit in their theories. Many will argue for infinite space with finite time in an infinite multiverse (and then argue that religion isn't parsimonious!). I'm more in the infinite space/time camp - the Big Bang was not an exceptional event (and spare me the Aristolelian infinite series problem).

Are you saying that the laws of the universe are non-material? In other words, are you advocating materialism?

[Amphigorey]

Are you saying that the laws of the universe are non-material? In other words, are you advocating materialism?

harvey1, I'm not a physicist, nor a theoretical cosmologist. If you mean "Materialism", like Physicalism, i.e. no Supernatural, no higher realities then yes, that's what I'm advocating.

[harvey1]

Are you saying that the laws of the universe are non-material? In other words, are you advocating materialism?

harvey1, I'm not a physicist, nor a theoretical cosmologist. If you mean "Materialism", like Physicalism, i.e. no Supernatural, no higher realities then yes, that's what I'm advocating.

Yes, I'm talking about purely metaphysical stuff 'above' material bodies. If laws control the behavior of materialist stuff but they themselves are not materialist stuff, then I'm assuming you reject such a view, right?

[Amphigorey]

Yes, I'm talking about purely metaphysical stuff 'above' material bodies. If laws control the behavior of materialist stuff but they themselves are not materialist stuff, then I'm assuming you reject such a view, right?

As I understand the definition of Materialism, it applies to the physical universe with known laws of physics in effect. I'm maintaining that for example gravity is of the same material as space/time. Isn't gravity a property of matter? You don't get gravity without mass, unless you're converting matter to energy. I suppose even photons have a slight gravitational effect. And some physicists say even gravitons have some mass.

I would maintain that if its having an effect on the physical universe its a property of the physical universe.

[harvey1]

Yes, I'm talking about purely metaphysical stuff 'above' material bodies. If laws control the behavior of materialist stuff but they themselves are not materialist stuff, then I'm assuming you reject such a view, right?

As I understand the definition of Materialism, it applies to the physical universe with known laws of physics in effect. I'm maintaining that for example gravity is of the same material as space/time. Isn't gravity a property of matter? You don't get gravity without mass, unless you're converting matter to energy. I suppose even photons have a slight gravitational effect. And some physicists say even gravitons have some mass. I would maintain that if its having an effect on the physical universe its a property of the physical universe.

Well, the three other known forces are mediated by bosons (i.e., the photon for electromagnetic force, the W and Z for the weak force, and the gluon for the strong force). The particle currently 'missing' is the graviton which many theories are predicting exists.

But, back to 'laws' that 'exist', would you consider God, as postulated by theists, as a physical property of the universe? Where do you draw the line from those things that are metaphysical objects (i.e., they are causal to spacetime geometry but they are abstractions of some sort) and objects that have material properties (e.g., mass, charge, spin, etc)?

[Amphigorey]

But, back to 'laws' that 'exist', would you consider God, as postulated by theists, as a physical property of the universe? Where do you draw the line from those things that are metaphysical objects (i.e., they are causal to spacetime geometry but they are abstractions of some sort) and objects that have material properties (e.g., mass, charge, spin, etc)?

Do I consider "God as postulated by Theists" a physical property of the physical universe? No. Its hard to imagine a personable God according to most Theistic conceptions being such a physical property. Its tempting to try to describe some conditions or criteria under which I might consider that true, but I'm not sure it can be done.

I'm sure there are forces or laws that are not yet identified. Physicists say quantum mechanics is just one step on the road and not the final word. But when humans discover such laws, they usually find ways to use them to their advantage. Or they make outright attempts to manipulate them. I think God as physical property somehow falls short for that reason. I would think that any God-property would be beyond manipulation.

Life inspires awe and reverence in me. I am physically part of something which consigns me to absolute insignificance. And I am tempted to feel fuzzy about Pantheism, but there again, that doesn't really define any deity as some individual aspect or property. And in my mind it doesn't assume any "mind" or mythology beyond the physical universe.

[harvey1]

Do I consider "God as postulated by Theists" a physical property of the physical universe? No. Its hard to imagine a personable God according to most Theistic conceptions being such a physical property. Its tempting to try to describe some conditions or criteria under which I might consider that true, but I'm not sure it can be done... I think God as physical property somehow falls short for that reason. I would think that any God-property would be beyond manipulation.

Actually, the reason I mentioned God was purely to 'test the waters' of your commitment to a materialist philosophy. It seems, though, that your rejection of God is not due to a conflict with any materialist philosophy, it seems rather that your view is that God cannot manipulate the universe as a metaphysical entity? Is that right?