If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Dutch Uncle]

I like the multi verse hypothesis too, but there is zero tangible evidence of it.

Why do universal mathematical laws and constants exist at all? We take them for granted, but we know of no self evident reason they should exist. They just popped into reality for no reason?

That's a good parable!

Correct just like there's zero tangible evidence of God.

If they didn't, we wouldn't exist. Also, it's like finding a weed in your yard or an ant in the kitchen. If there's one, then there's probably more. Especially if we are to believe that an all-powerful God created our universe. Why limit God to just one?

Lots of parables in the New Testament are good. It's ancient wisdom. There are several similar observations in the OT.

 

[Cypress]

Correct just like there's zero tangible evidence of God.

It's a reasonably decent logical inference that a lawful universe points to a law giver.
I don't see a good logical leap to say a lawful universe points to a multi verse.

If they didn't, we wouldn't exist. Also, it's like finding a weed in your yard or an ant in the kitchen. If there's one, then there's probably more. Especially if we are to believe that an all-powerful God created our universe. Why limit God to just one?

I'm not that hung up on one universe or a billion universes. Either way, logic and science points to an origin, a beginning for it all. An origin is impossible to escape.

Ant isn't a good analogy. We have tangible first hand experience of knowing where there is one ant or cockroach there are more. Because we experience of seeing them in groups. We've never seen another universe.

Lots of parables in the New Testament are good. It's ancient wisdom. There are several similar observations in the OT.

I've read or investigated a lot of ancient literature, and the thing that's unique about the New Testament is it's overarching theme of social justice.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's a reasonably decent logical inference that a lawful universe points to a law giver.
I don't see a good logical leap to say a lawful universe points to a multi verse.

I'm not that hung up on one universe or a billion universes. Either way, logic and science points to an origin, a beginning for it all. An origin is impossible to escape.

Ant isn't a good analogy. We have tangible first hand experience of knowing where there is one ant or cockroach there are more. Because we experience of seeing them in groups. We've never seen another universe.

I've read or investigated a lot of ancient literature, and the thing that's unique about the New Testament is it's overarching theme of social justice.

Why limit the "Lawgiver" to a single universe?

We only see life on Earth and no place else. There is no life elsewhere despite half a century of looking yet we don't assume we're the only life in the Universe due to lack of evidence. We look at the possibilities, the probabilities. We know of the third dimension and hypothesize the fourth and fifth dimensions. Although we experience the dimension of time, it's like a movie that we can't stop and only moves in one direction. There's no evidence of the Fifth dimension.

5th Dimension Explained (Fifth Dimension): Beyond Space and Time

Discover the 5th dimension in simple terms—explore parallel universes, string theory, and the secrets of higher dimensions.

www.engineeringmadeeasypro.com

What is the 5th Dimension?​

In physics, we live in a four-dimensional world — three dimensions of space (length, width, height) and one of time. But theoretical physics, especially string theory and M-theory, suggests the existence of additional dimensions.

The fifth dimension is the first dimension beyond space-time. It’s not something you can see or touch — but it could be just as real as the physical world around you.

Think of it this way:

• 1st dimension: a line (length)
• 2nd dimension: a plane (length + width)
• 3rd dimension: depth (adds height)
• 4th dimension: time (adds motion/change)
• 5th dimension: a new reality with alternative possibilities

Yes, the 5th dimension is like a parallel universe — a space where multiple timelines and realities can exist at once.

 

[Cypress]

Why limit the "Lawgiver" to a single universe?

Apparently, if you only slightly changed the gravitational force and the Higgs field, that type of universe would either collapse back on itself a fraction of a second from it's origin, or it would fly apart so rapidly that atomic matter could never form.

Those don't sound like universes a rational creator would create - and it also shows how finely tuned this one is on the edge of a razor.

We only see life on Earth and no place else. There is no life elsewhere despite half a century of looking yet we don't assume we're the only life in the Universe due to lack of evidence. We look at the possibilities, the probabilities. We know of the third dimension and hypothesize the fourth and fifth dimensions. Although we experience the dimension of time, it's like a movie that we can't stop and only moves in one direction. There's no evidence of the Fifth dimension.

5th Dimension Explained (Fifth Dimension): Beyond Space and Time

Discover the 5th dimension in simple terms—explore parallel universes, string theory, and the secrets of higher dimensions.

www.engineeringmadeeasypro.com

What is the 5th Dimension?​

In physics, we live in a four-dimensional world — three dimensions of space (length, width, height) and one of time. But theoretical physics, especially string theory and M-theory, suggests the existence of additional dimensions.

The fifth dimension is the first dimension beyond space-time. It’s not something you can see or touch — but it could be just as real as the physical world around you.

Think of it this way:

• 1st dimension: a line (length)
• 2nd dimension: a plane (length + width)
• 3rd dimension: depth (adds height)
• 4th dimension: time (adds motion/change)
• 5th dimension: a new reality with alternative possibilities

Yes, the 5th dimension is like a parallel universe — a space where multiple timelines and realities can exist at once.

I love the idea of a hyperdimensional space!
That is the backdrop of the movie Interstellar

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Apparently, if you only slightly changed the gravitational force and the Higgs field, that type of universe would either collapse back on itself a fraction of a second from it's origin, or it would fly apart so rapidly that atomic matter could never form.

Those don't sound like universes a rational creator would create - and it also shows how finely tuned this one is on the edge of a razor.

I love the idea of a hyperdimensional space!
That is the backdrop of the movie Interstellar

Agreed. It would be a dead universe....as our is forecast to be "100 trillion years from now".

What's rational about creating a universe that eventually dies regardless if it's within seconds of creation or 100T years?

The Big Freeze: How the universe will die

The cosmos will come to a close through a cold and lonely death called the Big Freeze.

www.astronomy.com

Decades of observations have only confirmed researchers’ findings. All signs now point to a long and lonely death that peters out toward infinity. The scientific term for this fate is “heat death.”

But things will be rather desolate long before that happens.

“Just” a couple trillion years from now, the universe will have expanded so much that no distant galaxies will be visible from our own Milky Way, which will have long since merged with its neighbors. Eventually, 100 trillion years from now, all star formation will cease, ending the Stelliferous Era that’s be running since not long after our universe first formed.

 

[Hume]

It's fine if you want to say humans are actually more than just atomic matter

I never believed humans are just atomic matter. Seems simplistic and anti-intellectual.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

The book is a human perception.

Sure, an all-powerful God can put the entire Bible into our DNA so that we'd each know it, but I think the point is to allow free will. If everyone knew, without a doubt, that there was a God and what God wanted, there'd be no free will.

Why would free will be so important to this entity? It could create anything, so why create a throng of followers and only hint they should pay homage to the it? Insecurity? So that god can 'feel better' with the thought that some of these created beings decided on their own (with lots of hints) to pay homage?

It really looks like the whole idea of a god is a human perception. Very convenient god is all about what the world means to humans. It really appears the whole idea of a god is so convenient for humans that it really came from humans. Humans have an afterlife, but the rest of the animals don't? That makes no sense considering how close human DNA is to animals. We are really not so different from animals. All we have done has been to develop higher knowledge. We are still living animals like the rest of "the beasts."

We call ourselves civilized but that is a stretch. We have buildings, governments and inventions but we still live and die just like the rest of the animals. They don't need a god. Neither do we. Maybe our problem is we think too much.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,



Why would free will be so important to this entity? It could create anything, so why create a throng of followers and only hint they should pay homage to the it? Insecurity? So that god can 'feel better' with the thought that some of these created beings decided on their own (with lots of hints) to pay homage?

It really looks like the whole idea of a god is a human perception. Very convenient god is all about what the world means to humans. It really appears the whole idea of a god is so convenient for humans that it really came from humans. Humans have an afterlife, but the rest of the animals don't? That makes no sense considering how close human DNA is to animals. We are really not so different from animals. All we have done has been to develop higher knowledge. We are still living animals like the rest of "the beasts."

We call ourselves civilized but that is a stretch. We have buildings, governments and inventions but we still live and die just like the rest of the animals. They don't need a god. Neither do we. Maybe our problem is we think too much.

IDK, but the results appear to be part of the dichotomic nature of the Universe.

Agreed the idea of god(s) and other spiritual matters are human perception. After all, how could intelligent apes ever hope to fully understand the power behind the creation of the entire Universe? We simply do the best we can.

Disagreed on thinking too much, but I think you and I can agree there's a difference between thinking and overthinking. Overthinking often falls into worrying and fretting about an infinite number of possible problems. This can cause brain-lock. The greatest fear of all is fear of the unknown since there are an infinite number of possibilities. Better, IMO, to pick out the biggest problems, prioritize them and move forward with a plan of action to resolve them.

Are You Overthinking? Here's How to Tell

Overthinking doesn't always lead to better solutions. Learn how to stop overthinking with tips for recognizing unhelpful thoughts and quieting your mind.

www.verywellmind.com

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wps.20910

FWIW, @Cypress and I have extensively discussed the subject of creation. He seems to favor an intelligent mind designing an a logical universe. I favor an infinite number of random universes, some of which are dead, others which die out shortly after birthing from their "Big Bang" and some which thrive and grow as ours is doing...for as long as it lasts. Our universe will eventually die. It's possible there are other universes with, due to their nature, will never die.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2939648?seq=2

Dichotomy Tests

Dichotomy Tests provides interesting tests that show you how inclined you are toward certain philosophical, psychological or political views. Each test tries to discover your preferred beliefs and will attempt to accurately position you along numerous dichotomic axes.

dichotomy-tests.pages.dev

 

[Cypress]

FWIW, @Cypress and I have extensively discussed the subject of creation. He seems to favor an intelligent mind designing an a logical universe. I favor an infinite number of random universes,

To me, a rational and purposeful organizing entity is the best current explanation for the actual physical conditions we can observe. But I cannot categorically rule out the other options.

There are really only three explanations for the existence of the universe:​

​

1) The universe is infinitely old, and does not require creation (this idea can be dismissed on the basis of logic and science).​

​

2) Matter and energy came into existence from nothing, because of inanimate physical causes (this idea is incoherent).​

​

3) Something outside the universe is responsible for it's origination and it's lawful mathematical organization.​

 

[Margot]

Most people would say even without books, the order and design of the universe, and the fact it even exists, points to a purposeful and rational creative force.


There are really only three explanations for the existence of the universe:

1) The universe is infinitely old, and does not require creation (this idea can be dismissed on the basis of logic and science).

2) Matter and energy came into existence from nothing, because of inanimate physical reasons (this idea is incoherent).

3) Something outside the universe is responsible for it's origination and it's lawful mathematical organization.

2)! Matter and energy came into existence, from that moment in time ,when Satan entered YHWH's space!
A metaphor would be ,Satan entered the Holy of Holies in
"The Temple" without an invitation!

 

[IBDaMann]

To me, a rational and purposeful organizing entity is the best current explanation for the actual physical conditions we can observe.

Explain. The physical conditions we observe are that the universe is a random dust cloud. The design of the universe appears to be the lack of any design at all.

There are really only three explanations for the existence of the universe:​

Really? Only three? Are you simply revealing the limits of your imagination?

1) The universe is infinitely old, and does not require creation (this idea can be dismissed on the basis of logic and science).​

Have you run your dismissal by @Into the Night ? I'd be interested to see how logic and science preclude that option.

2) Matter and energy came into existence from nothing, because of inanimate physical causes (this idea is incoherent).​

You just expressed the idea coherently .

3) Something outside the universe is responsible for it's origination and it's lawful mathematical organization.​

Are you saying that something outside the dust cloud kicked up the dust cloud?

 

[gmark77]

Why would free will be so important to this entity?

I believe the standard response is something along the lines of "freely given worship" and "freely given love" are more real than if God were to have created automatons who only had one setting ("Love").

It belies a certain degree of "ego" for the God concept being proposed. That God not only wants but needs love and worship, but they can't be automatic. It has to be "real" love and "real" worship.

The most illogical aspect of God derives from this: he creates a being which he knows is imperfect and flawed and then arranges to punish them for mistakes made in a temporary existence. The punishment will last forever, the chance to make the mistakes only a short period of time.

Now, of course, the thinking person may also realize that threatening someone with out-sized punishment if they do not "love" you might mean you get less than enthusiastic "real" love, but rather fear-based obsessive boot-licking. As one would do to a mafia thug.

This is the part that beggars the imagination: this God supposedly loves everyone.

This is why the God Concept (at least at the level of Christian instantiation) is logically problematic.

It really looks like the whole idea of a god is a human perception. Very convenient god is all about what the world means to humans.

^^^^^QFT 100%.

Yes God has so many human features and likes the same things we like and interestingly enough hates the same things we hate!

It really appears the whole idea of a god is so convenient for humans that it really came from humans. Humans have an afterlife, but the rest of the animals don't? That makes no sense considering how close human DNA is to animals. We are really not so different from animals. All we have done has been to develop higher knowledge. We are still living animals like the rest of "the beasts."

It is often difficult for the believer to imagine that humans are nothing more than other animals. Every shred of evidence puts us solidly on the same spectrum as all other life on the planet. But for the believer it is important that Humans be the crown of creation, above all else.

Luckily for humans that's a great place to be: at the top of the heap as one perceives the heap.

We call ourselves civilized but that is a stretch. We have buildings, governments and inventions but we still live and die just like the rest of the animals. They don't need a god. Neither do we. Maybe our problem is we think too much.

"Think too much" is probably exactly our problem. Our brains are amazing (indeed!) and they are pattern matching super-computers. In fact some anxiety related disorders seem to be the natural survival circuitry gone haywire! Even when we are broken the evidence is there that we are just other animals.

 

[gmark77]

2)! Matter and energy came into existence, from that moment in time ,when Satan entered YHWH's space!
A metaphor would be ,Satan entered the Holy of Holies in
"The Temple" without an invitation!

So if not matter or energy: what are Satan and YHWH?

 

[IBDaMann]

Why would free will be so important to this entity?

Your question is invalid, specifically it is a subjunctive fallacy. It assumes that God does not exist and embarks on showing what it assumes.

Try asking this question instead:

"Why is free will so important to God?"

Start from there and build.

It could create anything, so why create a throng of followers and only hint they should pay homage to the it?

Try asking "God can create anything, so why have followers who are appreciative??"

 

[Into the Night]

Correct just like there's zero tangible evidence of God.

If they didn't, we wouldn't exist. Also, it's like finding a weed in your yard or an ant in the kitchen. If there's one, then there's probably more. Especially if we are to believe that an all-powerful God created our universe. Why limit God to just one?

Lots of parables in the New Testament are good. It's ancient wisdom. There are several similar observations in the OT.

Why do you think God created the Universe? How does anyone or anything create something that it is part of? There are no known boundaries of the Universe.

 

[Into the Night]

It's a reasonably decent logical inference that a lawful universe points to a law giver.

What is a 'lawful universe'?? There is not 'law of the universe' I see posted anywhere.

I don't see a good logical leap to say a lawful universe points to a multi verse.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

I'm not that hung up on one universe or a billion universes.

There is no such thing as 'a billion universes'. There is only one universe, by definition. Go learn English.

Either way, logic and science points to an origin, a beginning for it all. An origin is impossible to escape.

Logic points to no such thing. Science points to no such thing. Go learn what 'origin' means.

Ant isn't a good analogy. We have tangible first hand experience of knowing where there is one ant or cockroach there are more. Because we experience of seeing them in groups. We've never seen another universe.

There is only one universe by definition. Go learn English.

I've read or investigated a lot of ancient literature, and the thing that's unique about the New Testament is it's overarching theme of social justice.

The New Testament does not discuss social justice.

 

[Into the Night]

To me, a rational and purposeful organizing entity is the best current explanation for the actual physical conditions we can observe.

What 'order' do you see in the Universe. It's just random stuff. Are you confusing the Earth with the Universe?

But I cannot categorically rule out the other options.

There are really only three explanations for the existence of the universe:​

Only three?

1) The universe is infinitely old, and does not require creation (this idea can be dismissed on the basis of logic and science).​

Science makes no mention of it. There is no theory of science about past unobserved events, or about nonevents (they didn't happen).
There is no such thing as 'infinitely old'. A universe that has always been here and always will be has no age. There is no fallacy in a universe that has always been here and always will be. This is also known as the Theory of the Continuum. It is not a theory of science.

The Theory of the Big Bang is also not a theory of science. The Theory of the Big Bang (or of a creator of some sort creating the Universe) DOES have to deal with a Homunculus fallacy. The Universe has no known boundary. There is no 'outside' because there is no 'inside'.

2) Matter and energy came into existence from nothing, because of inanimate physical causes (this idea is incoherent).​

You cannot create either energy nor matter from nothing. You are ignoring numerous laws offscience.

3) Something outside the universe is responsible for it's origination and it's lawful mathematical organization.​

There is no 'outside' because there is no 'inside'. The universe has no known boundaries.
What is 'lawful' about the universe?

 

[Into the Night]

2)! Matter and energy came into existence, from that moment in time ,when Satan entered YHWH's space!
A metaphor would be ,Satan entered the Holy of Holies in
"The Temple" without an invitation!

You cannot create either matter or energy from nothing. You are ignoring numerous laws of science.

 

[Into the Night]

I believe the standard response is something along the lines of "freely given worship" and "freely given love" are more real than if God were to have created automatons who only had one setting ("Love").

It belies a certain degree of "ego" for the God concept being proposed. That God not only wants but needs love and worship, but they can't be automatic. It has to be "real" love and "real" worship.

The most illogical aspect of God derives from this: he creates a being which he knows is imperfect and flawed and then arranges to punish them for mistakes made in a temporary existence. The punishment will last forever, the chance to make the mistakes only a short period of time.

Now, of course, the thinking person may also realize that threatening someone with out-sized punishment if they do not "love" you might mean you get less than enthusiastic "real" love, but rather fear-based obsessive boot-licking. As one would do to a mafia thug.

This is the part that beggars the imagination: this God supposedly loves everyone.

This is why the God Concept (at least at the level of Christian instantiation) is logically problematic.

Please state the fallacy. Be specific. Do you consider raising a child and having that child leave home and make his own way in the world a 'punishment'?

^^^^^QFT 100%.

Yes God has so many human features and likes the same things we like and interestingly enough hates the same things we hate!

You don't get to speak for everyone or God, Gunky.

It is often difficult for the believer to imagine that humans are nothing more than other animals.

Yet Man is much more than other animals.

Has any other animal built personal computers? Gone to the Moon and back? Modified it's environment to the extent that Man has? Built aircraft that can outfly any bird? Built cars that can travel faster than any animal? Created mathematics, logic, and philosophy? Created not only music, but systems for it such as the 12 tone scale? Built instruments to play that music. Built measurement and imaging devices that see what our own eyes cannot see? Constructed nuclear weapons? Constructed power plants and their distribution systems? Created medicines and treatments to cure us when we are ill?

Every shred of evidence puts us solidly on the same spectrum as all other life on the planet.

I disagree, Gunky. I have just given evidence in the previous paragraph.

But for the believer it is important that Humans be the crown of creation, above all else.

So you believe humans are created. Therefore you believe in a Creator.

Luckily for humans that's a great place to be: at the top of the heap as one perceives the heap.

Sure beats the bottom of the heap!

"Think too much" is probably exactly our problem. Our brains are amazing (indeed!) and they are pattern matching super-computers.

Super computers haven't got a snowball's chance in an iron foundry than they have to equaling the brain of a single individual.

In fact some anxiety related disorders seem to be the natural survival circuitry gone haywire!

Nah. You just don't know how to survive very well. That's pretty typical for cityfolk. Your own anxiety and your own pride is your own undoing.

Even when we are broken the evidence is there that we are just other animals.

What evidence?

 

[Margot]

You cannot create either matter or energy from nothing. You are ignoring numerous laws of science.

Run that by YHWH!