How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello boatsnguitars

You say - :"The problem I have with Theism is that it doesn't t explain how God (non-matter) can make matter"
-----

Do you want a Theism that tells you what it knows or one that tells you everything. In the OT, it takes two pages to get the world done from start to finish.
That's ' a stab at things'. Genesis does not question God's methods, God's intentions, or God's logic. The end result is all around you to examine and explore. Genesis moves quickly to the bit that we are in, cue,action, man. You were never going to get a driver's manual, Figure it out, I think.

The two bottom lines (it happens as you get older) where you have no information about two (or more) theories (hypotheses) you can only say 'I don't know'. We do not say 'I believe this creation -myth rather than any other'.

But we do have information. Science does explain how things happen and no god is shown to be needed. On the other hand Genesis is shown to be dubious and even wrong, if science is right.

Thus logically Genesis is not the logical preferable hypothesis.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #114

as Krauss pointed out, the virtual particles experiment show that matter/energy can come from a nothing that doesn't need creation.

He keeps saying that it happens. He says nothing about how it happens.

The universe is (or was) nothing and produced particles because it mathematically had to.

That sounds like the "Universe from Math" argument, which also suggests a mind since mathematical equations are purely mental constructs and would have no creative power of their own in Nothing.

But it is validated data that is happens even if we don't know how, apart from nothingness being unstable and has to produce Something (perhaps a virtual particle). Verification of data/events validates them to be real even if the mechanics are not known.

Yes, it does sound like universe from Math. But it would be more true to say the math is the language to explain that a thing happens if not how.

This why a postulated nothing was called potential/numerical value. Because of physics (quantum physics in this case) the numerical potential to produce matter was there without needing creation. Just as the square, circle and right angle were always potentially there to describe matter and didn't need to be created.

Did humans create or discover math? My understanding is that Math was there to be discovered, but is also the language (Arabic, in fact (1) we use to talk about it.

Despite your attempt to play the ID card, there is no reason to propose that mathematics any more than the laws of physics or the potential of nothing to produce something needs an Intelligence.

Bottom line, you may reject everything but the godfaith you want to be true, but I see no reason why I or anyone else should do that. So you have already failed to make a case, even if you think that clinging to any excuse to shoehorn a cosmic mind in there is winning it for you.

(1) as well as Algebra being an Arabic name, half our star names are Arabic, too. Aldebaran and Betelgeuse too I think.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #114

as Krauss pointed out, the virtual particles experiment show that matter/energy can come from a nothing that doesn't need creation.

He keeps saying that it happens. He says nothing about how it happens.

Exactly the same how christian apologetes do with The Resurrection

The universe is (or was) nothing and produced particles because it mathematically had to.

That sounds like the "Universe from Math" argument, which also suggests a mind since mathematical equations are purely mental constructs and would have no creative power of their own in Nothing.

I think this is meant somehow like:
2 + 2 mathematically have to make 4

Yes.I was thinking of the resurrection, too. If the evidence is strong that it really happened How it happened is academic. It is obvious in human history that we knew many things happened (especially the ones that repeated so often we could be sure they were true, like volcanoes or comets or eclipses) even before we understood what did them. One off claims we could not check ought to be doubtful, but superstition seemed to render them undeniable. Faith is something I accept universally happens to us even though I fail to understand what we do it for.

You nailed it on Math. The basics exist. two rocks and two rocks make 4 rocks. This is natural law of reality and no god had to invent that. The language we use to talk about it is what humans devise, but (arguably) the laws already exist but do not need a god to write them all down.

I make the same argument about logic, particularly the principle of parsimony or Occam's razor. (simplest answer is the preferred). I use the bouldrt and bush mind experiment. When a boulder obscures a bush does the bush still exist or not? The way the world works suggests it is still there even if we can't see it. But logically it would add more things to propose - the bush would have reason to know it was observed or not and a mechanism for winking out of existence. It is a less complex and dubious theory to propose it is still there. That is the go -to theory even without being able to verify it.

That is also why something from nothing is a less complex problem than creation created by an uncreated creator.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "You nailed it on Math. The basics exist. two rocks and two rocks make 4 rocks. This is natural law of reality and no god had to invent that. The language we use to talk about it is what humans devise, but (arguably) the laws already exist but do not need a god to write them all down.....
Just as the square, circle and right angle were always potentially there to describe matter and didn't need to be created.
Did humans create or discover math? My understanding is that Math was there to be discovered..."
------

Ten minutes away from Google search, and thinking on your own, T, and you look lost. I will be responding to you all day, by the look of things.

You think that the basics of numerical Maths are in the environment. That is delusion. That is worse than me imagining a God. You are sensing things that are not there. You are becoming a mystic.
I would give music a chance but Maths ..No! That is just a crutch of man. People have attached numerical intervals to the natural God rhythms of our existence. God gives us Maths so. You are muscling in on my action, Mystic T.
In all seriousness, this is a very long conversation that neither of us need. I feel that perpendicular is a direct deduction from natural gravity. We built the walls straight and they stayed up! The number on my birthday card is like that lead balloon that your theistic minds try to sprint with, if you know what I mean. Have you ever used a watch to help you wait, my God, give me the sun any day of the week.
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "You nailed it on Math. The basics exist. two rocks and two rocks make 4 rocks. This is natural law of reality and no god had to invent that. The language we use to talk about it is what humans devise, but (arguably) the laws already exist but do not need a god to write them all down.....
Just as the square, circle and right angle were always potentially there to describe matter and didn't need to be created.
Did humans create or discover math? My understanding is that Math was there to be discovered..."
------

Ten minutes away from Google search, and thinking on your own, T, and you look lost. I will be responding to you all day, by the look of things.

You think that the basics of numerical Maths are in the environment. That is delusion. That is worse than me imagining a God. You are sensing things that are not there. You are becoming a mystic.
I would give music a chance but Maths ..No! That is just a crutch of man. People have attached numerical intervals to the natural God rhythms of our existence. God gives us Maths so. You are muscling in on my action, Mystic T.
Thanks

I think you are the one whose thinking does not match up. The distance between a rock and a tree is one yard, or 300 centimetres or a quarter furlong a 2 cubits or four feet. or whatever. The fact of the distance is inherent and the measures the language we devise for it.

Put a bush there, the rock, tree and bush form an angle of a number of degrees. We use Arabic to talk about it but the fact of the angle is inherent, as are circles, squares and hexagons, and basic mathematics are potentially there without needing an intelligent creator. Just as are the rules of logic. If you think this is equivalent to inventing mythological beings, I can only say that you haven't caught up yet.

Notably in music.That is an invention of man. The physics of sound exist of course, but the emotional effect it has is purely biological. If humans didn't exist, nor would music. But distances, angles and mathematics would. You have something to learn.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Just as are the rules of logic. If you think this is equivalent to inventing mythological beings, I can only say that you haven't caught up yet"
------

The rules of logic are now a natural occurrence. How does that work? You are on a roll today!
Proceed!
Do we sense logic?
Do we pick it up like a tool?
Do we harvest a commodity called logic. ( Is it like manna from heaven?
Do we assemble logic from parts lying around the place?
What are the Rules of Logic that you speak of?

If you are saying that we learn from attentive observation, like children in awe of an instructive parent ,then I agree with you.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
Our God intuition decreases alarmingly with each generation. We are more and more susceptible to the influences of worthless alternatives. There will always be Gods,in the future, but they will be more cinematically dramatic and extreme in their expression. You are likely to see a retro-trend towards old school jihadi nonsense. Non- believers can watch T.V.
Why is this happening?

We are now officially enslaved by our own cognitive constructs that we are referring to as logic. It is not that the logic of man is incorrect but that there is too much of it. It conflicts itself like a blunt knife.

Remember that primate, Adam, caught between a grunt, a scratch and a sniff, living in lethargic luxury.

We have come a long way from that place in the wrong direction. We are walking away from God as Genesis illustrates. We know too much of what we do not need to go back. Humanity moves forward in an Exodus from Eden. Wish us Luck!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #131

This why a postulated nothing was called potential/numerical value. Because of physics (quantum physics in this case) the numerical potential to produce matter was there without needing creation. Just as the square, circle and right angle were always potentially there to describe matter and didn't need to be created.

In other words, since in a postulated nothing there would be no physics to make anything happen, there would be no physics to stop anything from happening, so anything could happen.

Even then, it happens without physics.

Let's look again at Krauss' own definition of Nothing, in the second clip I linked to: "no space, no time, no particles, no radiation.....nothing". Another question raised by his suggestion that the laws of physics came into existence when the universe itself began is that if physics was itself part of what was created, how can physics be what was doing the creating?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #129

Theists say is logically impossible that from Nothing(philosophical nothingness) something arise.
Krauss basically says Nothing is not Nothing(philosophical nothingness) but still something.

COLBERT: To me, that sounds like the empty space might be empty to us, but it is some sort of.....sheath or membrane.....

KRAUSS: No! No! There's nothing there!

COLBERT: ......some other reality.

KRAUSS: No, there's nothing.....well, there's absolutely nothing there....until there is.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #129

Theists say is logically impossible that from Nothing(philosophical nothingness) something arise.
Krauss basically says Nothing is not Nothing(philosophical nothingness) but still something.

COLBERT: To me, that sounds like the empty space might be empty to us, but it is some sort of.....sheath or membrane.....

KRAUSS: No! No! There's nothing there!

COLBERT: ......some other reality.

KRAUSS: No, there's nothing.....well, there's absolutely nothing there....until there is.

Q: Quote mining maybe? Misunderstanding maybe?

Please put the source.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #129

Theists say is logically impossible that from Nothing(philosophical nothingness) something arise.
Krauss basically says Nothing is not Nothing(philosophical nothingness) but still something.

COLBERT: To me, that sounds like the empty space might be empty to us, but it is some sort of.....sheath or membrane.....

KRAUSS: No! No! There's nothing there!

COLBERT: ......some other reality.

KRAUSS: No, there's nothing.....well, there's absolutely nothing there....until there is.

Q: Quote mining maybe? Misunderstanding maybe?

Please put the source.

See post #112.
That's that interview and is what is said. Colbert was trying to insist on Something that needed creation and Krauss is saying no, a nothing that doesn't need creation can itself produce virtual particles because mathematically, it must.

incidentally, Colbert ends up with (possibly scripted) funny/clever point but wrong in three ways.

(1) "If God is nothing, then couldn't everything have come from God?" Good one, and aside that Colbert plays the offended and aggressive God - apologist who is constantly pulling fallacies for his faith (he is horribly persistent in trying to force a knowledge - position on Krauss), it is wrong - If god is nothing...but If the nothing is NOT God, then no everything did not come from it.

(2) If the Nothing is posited as God, how could an uncreated nothing that only produces particles because it is unstable have creative intelligence and will to create? That Nothing can't logically credibly be a cosmic mind.
And
(3) equivocation. There is no dog that has 8 tails. This does not mean there is a dog called 'No -dog' that has 8 tails - an agnostic claim as nobody can prove there is no 8 - tailed dog somewhere, but there is no good reason to think there is and the burden of proof is one one who believes there is a dog with 8 tails. The burden of proof is not on the non -believer, but on the god -claimant, just as in the proposition: ''If God is nothing' does not equate to 'There is God, and His name in Nothing' (1). That is just semantic trickery, which was a nice way to end the show but if he thinks that won his the argument, he is sadly deluded.

(1) we can leave aside theophanic flummery and smokescreening like (I can do it as well) "Ah, the Hindu Bramah has 'He is not this, not that'. Those ancient savants knew a lot more than we suppose". Since I raise the point, I'll address it. All the old philosophers from the Greek peripatetics to the Chinese Chan Taoists, seem to come up against a divine reality that becomes more nothinglike and less humanlike the more they try to comprehend it. Eg trying to comprehend heave. Discussion seems to end up requiring all souls (disembodied minds) to be like drugged up helium baloons mindlessly bobbing about as anything else would be unendurable for eternity. Oblivion *which atheists postulate) seem the inevitable only credible alpha and omega for the soul, Reality and eternity.