Why I changed my mind


Now you are changing the subject. I wasn’t asking for an argument showing that Einstein’s theory was accurate within our universe. I was asking if there is a logical argument for God creating the universe.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #222

What you are saying is that you are saying is that Einstein’s theory is a logical premise that you do not support, which is the reason why you believe that the universe has no beginning.

I do not think that I was using God as a premise, because I know that we do not agree with this concept. God could be a conclusion if we agree on the premises, but thus far you frail to agree that there is any evidence to support the fact that the universe has a beginning, including Einstein’s theory, which is settled science. Just because you do not agree with Einstein’s theory without expressed justification does not mean that it lacks backing.

(George Brooks) #223


Isn’t that a bit of an over-statement? Logic can be applied from any starting point.

Proof, however, probably needs a more secure foundation than just “logic” requires.


I believe the universe does have a beginning.

However, we aren’t talking about my beliefs. We are talking about yours.

I accept Einstein’s theory within this universe and that the universe had a beginning.

Are we going to get to the rest of the logical argument any time soon?


You can start anywhere you want, but the validity* of the conclusion rests on the validity of the assumptions/premises. We can start with the assumption that Leprechauns cause mushrooms to grow in your front yard, but I doubt you would trust the validity of any conclusion based on that premise.

*I am using the word in the specific context of logic, not in a general sense. I am not trying to imply that religious beliefs are invalid outside of logic.

(George Brooks) #226


You and Roger are different folds in the same cloth made of inflexible plate steel.

He says belief in God just can’t be an assumption
and you know I caught you saying
that logic can’t be applied to an un-demonstrated premise.

I think I’ll let you two just keep wacking at each other. You are both immovable objects.


You were correct to criticize that position, and I accept your correction. You can start with any assumption you want. However, if we are trying to reach valid conclusions then you need to start with valid assumptions which is the point I was trying to make.

(George Brooks) #228

@T_aquaticus (@Relates)

Yes, yes. Of course. You and Roger will expire on the points you make - - both of you yielding your last
Pneumatic Puffs of Perfectives to the Platonic Piazza of Perfect Premises.


“Man spends his life in reasoning on the past, in complaining of the present, in fearing future.”–Antoine Rivarol

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #230

If the one does not start from the premise that God is the Creator, how would you arrive at the position that then purpose of the universe is to produce humans? Answer: Because that is what the universe did (along with other beings.)

Case closed.


The universe also did black holes, gas giants, the Face on Mars, and supernovae. Out of all the things that the universe has done, how were you able to pick out humans as the purpose of the universe?

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #232


I did not pick out humans as the purpose of the universe. Humans have determined that humanity is the purpose of the universe. See the strong anthropic principle et al.

Now I know that you are not ignorant of these things, so I really do not know why you are asking me this question. If you have good reason to disagree with this judgment, then state your case.

(Richard Wright) #233

Hello T,

For starters, a quantum vacuum is something, not nothing, and exists in spacetime. So you still are at ground zero for identifying the UPE that initiated the universe.

Also, it is not logical to think that science will come up with an answer for the universe, since scientific evidence is based on testing models, and we will never be able to test anything outside of spacetime.

My argument that theism is the logical alternative to atheism:

STRONG ATHEISM - Someone stating, “There is no god” makes themselves God, since somehow they know everything.


Admits that God may exist, but there is no evidence for or against God at the moment. But that’s not really their argument. What they are saying (or should properly say) is that there is evidence for something, but what exactly that, “something” is undefined. There are 3 alternatives:

  1. God
  2. A UPE (unidentified physical entity)
  3. Ontological Nothingness

Almost nobody attributes the universe to #3, so you have God or a UPE, which is usually either the multiverse or the figment of an anti-theist physicist’s imagination.

But herein lies the rub. This debate is not between 2 Intel chips analyzing data in the night. Every human alive knows that the concept of God entails much more than creating the physical universe. In addition to that God gives meaning and purpose to life and has answers to the question of why we are here. In the major monotheistic faiths life here, with the spiritual mixed with the physical, leads to the possibility of eternal life. Along with those notions of God, most people actually sense the spiritual, of eternity and of purpose and meaning to their lives that leads to a life after this physical life.

So the weak atheist bases their possible eternal destiny on something that, “science” will never determine, something you admit (or almost admit, though you should logically fully admit it). And merely considering the multiverse or a UPE naturally leads to the question, “where did they come from?”.

Therefore the agnostic/weak atheist position is truly weak. It states that there is evidence that could be attributed to a god, but there are other alternatives as well and we’ll just have to wait. But it has been demonstrated that logically we will never have scientific answers. And any theoretical answers will have to have an accounting, because experience in this existence tells us that. The only logical answer to this existence is God.

In the end you’re saying that there could be a god, but there are other alternatives. God is the most logical of the alternatives for existence, because He is the best explanation for the nature of this existence.


I was under the (false?) impression that there was a logical argument leading to the conclusion that humans were the purpose of the universe. If you are instead relating a closely held belief, that’s fine and I have no argument against that.


A quantum vacuum is the “nothing” that physicists are talking about. Can you explain why it isn’t allowed?

It is also not logical to base an argument on the claim that science will never figure something out.

Why do you find it necessary to define my position for me? Aren’t I allowed to speak for myself?

There is currently no evidence for how the universe started. Period. All I am referring to is possibilities that people have put forward. You claim that these possibilities are impossible, and that is the claim I have challenged. Using your own definitions, you have made yourself into God, proclaiming that you know everything.

Those are the standard beliefs within Christianity. The question is if there is a logical argument that leads to those beliefs.

Again, those are not my beliefs. First, I have yet to see any evidence of something that exists outside of human mortality. Kind of hard to use science to base a belief on when you don’t have that belief. Second, I have said over and over that I don’t know how the the universe started. “I dont’ know” is not a belief.

What logic is that?

Same question again. What logic is that?

How so?

(John Dalton) #236

This agnostic atheist (I hate the term weak atheist–it sounds so… weak) takes issue with this delineation. Is God a physical entity? I assume not. Why would we say God is the only possible non-physical entity? I don’t see how we’ve excluded other non-physical entities that don’t have all or any of the characteristics popularly associated with God. There could even be entities which don’t fall into our neat physical/non-physical classification system. Whatever entity we conceive of is going to suffer from the same origin problem–why does it exist?–so I tend to think the answer must be something inconceivable. We can’t just stick a God label on anything that doesn’t confirm with the known characteristics of the physical.

(George Brooks) #237


I think many mormons would agree with you on those points.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #238


I really do not think that humans came up with a concept of God and then asked what God did.

They experienced the universe and asked from whence did it and they come from and this resulted in the answer, God.

That is still the best answer particularly since the Big Bang Theory which scientifically states that the universe had a beginning in time and space, even though @T_aquaticus and you do not accept this.

IMHO Christianity and Judaism provide by far the best description of the God (YHWH) Who created the universe and everything in it from nothing, no matter, no energy, no time, no space, no UPE. See Einstein’s Theory for verification.


Which part are you saying that I don’t accept?

(John Dalton) #240

Would they? I don’t know much about Mormonism.

OK, but I don’t see what that has to do with what I said.

That is still the best answer particularly since the Big Bang Theory which scientifically states that the universe had a beginning in time and space, even though @T_aquaticus and you do not accept this.

Did I say that? Sure I do–that’s what the men with the science degrees seem to think, and I think I get it.