I equate God to a sentient higher being(taking no singular figure), that cannot be quantitatively measure since he is outside of the universe. But, the point I think you're trying to make is that since this "God" I have in my mind cannot be proven true or false, any statement made of him holds no meaning? Or am I completely off?

Quote from Exilement

The big bang happened either way, and it didn't happen in "the vacuum of space". It was the expansion of a singularity which contained the known universe, not an event that occurred within it.

It's really the choice between the big bang being caused by a yet-unknown natural occurrence, or that the existence of some higher power did it. It's the choice between X and X+Y, I don't see how X+Y can be considered equally complex.

What could have caused the initial expansion of the singularity?

What I'm saying is that the X could not have happened without the Y. So the Y actually simplifies to an X_Y.

Quote from blacktrilogy

What could have caused the initial expansion of the singularity?

There are many, many chemical reactions that can occur spontaneously without outside forces, because the constituents of the reaction are so unstable. It seems to me that this concept could easily apply to a singularity that contained enough force to create a universe.

Quote from blacktrilogy

What could have caused the initial expansion of the singularity?

Hell if I know.

Quote from blacktrilogy

What I'm saying is that the X could not have happened without the Y. So the Y actually simplifies to an X_Y.

There's no reason to believe our universe required an outside force to be created. Saying it couldn't have happened without a god is not supported by anything

Quote from Exilement

There's no reason to believe our universe required an outside force to be created. Saying it couldn't have happened without a god is not supported by anything

There's no reason to believe that the universe didn't require an outside force to create it. It's not certain that it couldn't have happened without a higher being orchestrating it, but it respects concept of causality; the randomosity of a singularity is quite complex.

Quote from blacktrilogy

There's no reason to believe that the universe didn't require an outside force to create it.

Absolutely no scientific field of inquiry has conceded to say the only possible explanation of something requires the existence of a higher power or a god. Ever. Yet throughout all of recorded history man has attributed the existence of natural phenomena to gods because it escaped their understanding, because that was the best they could do. Phenomena that has since been shown to be natural.

And it really doesn't respect the concept of causality. At some point, there has to be a first mover. It's much simpler to say the universe itself was the first mover, instead of creating another link in the chain of causality and adding to the overall complexity of the universe. I've already mentioned this. What created that higher power, then?

Quote from blacktrilogy

I equate God to a sentient higher being(taking no singular figure), that cannot be quantitatively measure since he is outside of the universe. But, the point I think you're trying to make is that since this "God" I have in my mind cannot be proven true or false, any statement made of him holds no meaning? Or am I completely off?

You've gotten to my conclusion, but really the whole verifiability is more of a test for whether or not your statement is meaningful than the reason that it's meaningless. The fact that all meaningful statements must be verified follows logically from the premise that you have to have some thought in your head before you can try to communicate that thought to others.

And you still haven't defined "higher" in this context. If I take you literally then we have a meaningful statement which can be disproved - if we look above our heads we don't see brains (sentient beings) floating above us.

And as Chimaera said, "outside this universe" means the same as "does not exist" since the definition of a thing which exists is a thing that is in this universe.

Sorry for the late response, I was doing some chemistry homework and dozed off.

Quote from Zed

You've gotten to my conclusion, but really the whole verifiability is more of a test for whether or not your statement is meaningful than the reason that it's meaningless. The fact that all meaningful statements must be verified follows logically from the premise that you have to have some thought in your head before you can try to communicate that thought to others.

And you still haven't defined "higher" in this context. If I take you literally then we have a meaningful statement which can be disproved - if we look above our heads we don't see brains (sentient beings) floating above us.

And as Chimaera said, "outside this universe" means the same as "does not exist" since the definition of a thing which exists is a thing that is in this universe.

By higher I mean a being that knows more than we could ever know, something of a higher order. It creates but cannot be created or conjured in our imaginations. Like a sentient force that can't be measured.

Everything within the universe only exists because we can measure in some way. "God" is just as believable as how a singularity would come to be. Pertaining to Aristotle's four causes for existence/creation, a Singularity doesn't have a "Primary Source of Change or Rest" or a "Final Cause".

But, on the other hand "God" doesn't have a definitive "Material Cause" or "Formal Cause". so... :$

Quote from Exilement

Absolutely no scientific field of inquiry has conceded to say the only possible explanation of something requires the existence of a higher power or a god. Ever. Yet throughout all of recorded history man has attributed the existence of natural phenomena to gods because it escaped their understanding, because that was the best they could do. Phenomena that has since been shown to be natural.

And it really doesn't respect the concept of causality. At some point, there has to be a first mover. It's much simpler to say the universe itself was the first mover, instead of creating another link in the chain of causality and adding to the overall complexity of the universe. I've already mentioned this. What created that higher power, then?

The higher power is the top of the chain of command, nothing exceeds this higher power. He was here before the universe came to be, so the laws of time and space wouldn't pertain to him. He'd have always existed, and would see no end. I can't completely wrap my head around the concept, but if there was nothing beforehand, the possibilities are endless. The Singularity that produced the big bang could have the same likelihood of somehow forming itself as a God creating it.

Deist/theological non-cognitivist. Much more reasonable. I'm pretty sure all religion is based on a misunderstanding of how words work so I'm happy enough to play with them for a while. Also we did the theist/antitheist debate too recently.

Quote from blacktrilogy

By higher I mean a being that knows more than we could ever know, something of a higher order. It creates but cannot be created or conjured in our imaginations. Like a sentient force that can't be measured.

I don't understand "being" here. Sentience requires a brain of some sort. Where is this giant cosmic brain? And where was it before the universe started?

Quote from Zed

I don't understand "being" here. Sentience requires a brain of some sort. Where is this giant cosmic brain? And where was it before the universe started?

It would only require a brain if it reflected animal anatomy. The brain was made so that it would be able to grow, change and at some point die. I'm not sure how the mechanics of a cosmic brain would work, but I'm sure it wouldn't pertain to the same functionality of a human brain.

How do you visualise "sentience" occurring without sense data. The mind is just a collection of perceptions. Perceptions require eyes and ears. Where are God's eyes and ears? Or if he doesn't need them, how does he perceive? What do you visualise this "God" as being? And if you don't visualise him at all, how can you speak about him meaningfully?

He would have been the one to create the concept of sense data and the use of eyes, ears and nostrils to generate it. Why would he need the same mechanisms he created for us to have sensory perceptions? Hypothetically, he would create these inter-connected mechanisms to give us a way to experience; have feelings, emotions and recognize him as our creator.

To merely visualize him would be impossible, he takes no form and it would be superficial. His traits and character is explained extensively in the scriptures. He is merciful, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. It would make no difference to me if he was the shape of a spoon.

ok, maybe it would, but that's not the case.

The bible explains that god created the universe in 7 days, which we know isn't remotely accurate. So why would you trust those descriptions to be accurate?

Quote from Exilement

The bible explains that god created the universe in 7 days, which we know isn't remotely accurate. So why would you trust those descriptions to be accurate?

I have a thought as to how that number would come into utility.

A day was a flexible concept when there was no earth. A day is 24 hours because the earth takes approximately that amount of time to rotate in a full circle around it's axis and varies from planet to planet(which you most likely already know; not trying to insult your intelligence). Why would "God" specifically use an earth day to measure how long it took him to create the universe, along with an earth that had not been created?

Under that premise, I would be led to believe that he used a form of measurement unknown to us, but much, much larger than just 24 hours.

The progression of creation still makes no sense if you take each "day" to represent a specific amount of time. Have you even read the bible? The first thing he does is create light, and then "divide" it into light and darkness to create day and night. but he doesn't create the sky until the day after, and doesn't even create stars or the sun until day four.

you can't really stretch this explanation into one that agrees with what we know about the universe.