0.0% of Icelanders under the age of 25 believes God created the world - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49541096](A) Positing structures outside of time isn't completely unheard of. Time is what makes things require creation - casual explanation. Anything outside of time exists at all points in time. It is independent of time. (B)Inside the group, causality raises questions of what came before. Outside of time this question does not arise. (C)Interaction between a timeless entity and a temporal one (let's say the universe) would be abstract to say the least. Such an entity, however, would, from its point of view, be equally acting upon all points in time. They would all be as close to it as any other point. The question of how it interacted with the creation of the universe ends up being the same of how it is that there can be any sort of logical or mathematical constant in existence from which order can arise, be it in the atomic, molecular, cellular, macroscopic, cosmic, galactic, universal, or even multi-universal. All these things must share some order in common which is not ephemeral. (D)Where we started is a question of how can there be motion. The answer proposed is that there is a final unmoved mover which gives rise to these things. This is not a problem if you allow complexity to exist outside of spacial-temporal structure. Such a structure has change encoded into its nature whereas the external timeless structure proposed would not. This is not an arbitrary distinction but rather an actual rift between what can change, and what cannot.[/QUOTE] You're still running into the same problems: No "first cause land" you think up requires or indicates any sort of intelligent being. At the very best, you're just say "well there's entirely different set of rules in this realm I just made up, so maybe a god could conceivably exist in it", at worst you're just going "the rules don't apply to God because he's God." And you STILL haven't really solved the question. Instead of asking how the universe got here, now we have to ask how the vague, timeless meta-universe got here. And before you say "it doesn't need to have a cause, it's different" (which is still special pleading), if there could conceivably exist a realm that could exist without being caused, then it might as well just be this one. All you've really done is just added another step between when things existed and when they didn't by adding inscrutable tangle of metaphysical nonsense at the end.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49541319]You're still running into the same problems: No "first cause land" you think up requires or indicates any sort of intelligent being. At the very best, you're just say "well there's entirely different set of rules in this realm I just made up, so maybe a god could conceivably exist in it", at worst you're just going "the rules don't apply to God because he's God." And you STILL haven't really solved the question. Instead of asking how the universe got here, now we have to ask how the vague, timeless meta-universe got here. And before you say "it doesn't need to have a cause, it's different" (which is still special pleading), if there could conceivably exist a realm that could exist without being caused, then it might as well just be this one. All you've really done is just added another step between when things existed and when they didn't by adding inscrutable tangle of metaphysical nonsense at the end.[/QUOTE] The whole point is that outside of time there is no "other step" to be distinguished from whereas within time there is and problems like further justifying the first cause arise. As far as the god aspect of it, it all depends on what you deem a mind and furthermore how you define god. Some only require that it be the highest being responsible for existence, others require that it be sentient in some sense, others require that it be sentient in the human sense, others still require it to meet some strict theological definition.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49541502]The whole point is that outside of time there is no "other step" to be distinguished from whereas within time there is and problems like further justifying the first cause arise. As far as the god aspect of it, it all depends on what you deem a mind and furthermore how you define god. Some only require that it be the highest being responsible for existence, others require that it be sentient in some sense, others require that it be sentient in the human sense, others still require it to meet some strict theological definition.[/QUOTE] Again, you've not answered any question further back by adding a wibbly-wobbly timeless land, you've just hidden the problem behind and even more complicated one. It's like Old Lady who Swallowed a Fly. Not only is the question of "why does anything exist at all" unanswered, but now we also have to make sense of some timeless meta-universe that tells our universe what to do, and possibly was tells [I]that [/I] universe what to do. But back to the core issue- it doesn't really depend on what I define as a mind or a God, because there's zero reason to assume this timeless outside realm, or any other concept of a first cause, needs one to function. Unless there is a logical reason why the causeless cause must be intelligent, then it there is no reason to add a god into the mix. Basically, anything God can do, the Universe can do Occam-ier.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49541648] Basically, anything God can do, the Universe can do Occam-ier.[/QUOTE] I am running with the assumption that there are constants independent of the happenings of the universe. This is to say that no matter what happens to the universe certain things would still be true. What the universe, defined as things within space-time, cannot do is justify space-time itself - the overall structure. Just because the problem becomes more complicated because you need to justify an unchanging characteristic of the universe does not make it any less valid. The truth of the matter is that, assuming no bootstrapping (the attaining of a property by self-action as opposed to character), all things must end in some truth which would probably be something very complex and yet indivisible. A singular necessary existent with a property that can justify and ground all other things. That existent would be logically necessary in any and all worlds.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49529888]There are people who take the creation story, along with everything else in the bible, literally.[/QUOTE] Pretty unfortunate considering how at least one of the stories was stolen directly from a different civilization [url]https://newrepublic.com/article/116287/babylonian-tablet-describes-noahs-ark-pre-bible[/url]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49545813]I am running with the assumption that there are constants independent of the happenings of the universe. This is to say that no matter what happens to the universe certain things would still be true. What the universe, defined as things within space-time, cannot do is justify space-time itself - the overall structure. Just because the problem becomes more complicated because you need to justify an unchanging characteristic of the universe does not make it any less valid. The truth of the matter is that, assuming no bootstrapping (the attaining of a property by self-action as opposed to character), all things must end in some truth which would probably be something very complex and yet indivisible. A singular necessary existent with a property that can justify and ground all other things. That existent would be logically necessary in any and all worlds.[/QUOTE] And once more, you [I]still [/I]have same problems. No how matter how much circular "because it's special" reasoning you want to use, you still have something coming from nothing and the universe makes as much sense as it did before. It's like you're saying the world is supported on the back of a turtle, who's standing on another turtle, and that's it. And you [I]still [/I]have given no reason why any of this implies any sort of intelligence.

[QUOTE=phygon;49546164]Pretty unfortunate considering how at least one of the stories was stolen directly from a different civilization [url]https://newrepublic.com/article/116287/babylonian-tablet-describes-noahs-ark-pre-bible[/url][/QUOTE] One? Try almost all.

I think the point of God is to use it as an authority when justifying your actions and notably when giving objective meaning to life & existence where we're unable to find any.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49546333]And once more, you [I]still [/I]have same problems. No how matter how much circular "because it's special" reasoning you want to use, you still have something coming from nothing and the universe makes as much sense as it did before. It's like you're saying the world is supported on the back of a turtle, who's standing on another turtle, and that's it. And you [I]still [/I]have given no reason why any of this implies any sort of intelligence.[/QUOTE] No, what I am saying is that all reasoning must end in some special case, some special assumption or structure of assumptions. To run with the turtles all the way down metaphor: You are accusing me of calling God a turtle, whereas instead it would be more like a duck. The question is how does the turtle stay up? It isn't under its own power because turtles don't fly, so it would have to be under the power of a different sort of animal, namely a bird. At this point what we disagree on is whether turtles have wings.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49547146]No, what I am saying is that all reasoning must end in some special case, some special assumption or structure of assumptions. To run with the turtles all the way down metaphor: You are accusing me of calling God a turtle, whereas instead it would be more like a duck. The question is how does the turtle stay up? It isn't under its own power because turtles don't fly, so it would have to be under the power of a different sort of animal, namely a bird. At this point what we disagree on is whether turtles have wings.[/QUOTE] There's still no reason to assume the duck would be any more intelligent than the turtle or a normal duck, or less metaphorically have any intelligence whatsoever. There's also the other matter of how turtles can't really be planet sized and live in space either, so they might as well fly while they're at it. Or if there's a medium that would allow a space duck to actually flying, than the turtle could just well be swimming. So really, who needs the duck?