If you start with this premise, there’s no point to a discussion about God being the source of anything in particular. It seems to me Richard is not making this assumption. He has said that he is using logic in order to reach such a conclusion.
Thanks. I understand this, but you never know.
I see this as two entirely different questions. The existence of matter and the universe being one, and the eventual emergence of life within reality being a subordinate (and far less inexplicable) question.
I’m not so sure. I said before it must be inconceivable, and what you say may well be true, but I’m not sure that such parameters, which people typically use to imagine it, are even meaningful in the context.
I’ve seen your posts. I don’t think any of those are necessary if we’re talking about the existence of reality. They’re certainly relevant to our human existence, but there are ways of explaining them that don’t require any kind of unimaginable creator, in the way that the very existence of matter and the universe do.
Based on what I said above, it seems to me that you’ve let a presupposition slip into your argument. If you think those things are necessary parts of reality (or however you might like to put it) than by definition you require a creator that explains those things. To me, things like good, etc are (in short) part of human perception. Explaining them is not something on the same level as explaining the very existence of reality.
Sounds reasonable to me
Fine. But look at the alternatives. A UPE needs an explanation for its existence and how it produced such a large and ordered universe.
Sure. But here’s the core of my argument–so does an “UNE”–unexplained non-physical entity God, anything else we might think of, and as far as I can tell any non-physical universe-explaining thing that might exist qualify as such. I can certainly understand believing that God exists, and you’ve given many reasons here for such a belief, but I don’t see how God’s existence, even if eternal etc., has been explained . I might even go so far as to use a phrase you used earlier about an eternal universe, and call it a “cosmic accident” with regards to the way the idea is generally presented.
If a spiritual or semi-spiritual thing got us here, why didn’t it reach out to humans to help them?
You’re getting pretty far into theology here.
Maybe you don’t see the universe as demanding answers, but the vast in history have.
While the need for answers may not be vital, I agree that many people want or even demand answers. But that doesn’t mean that we have the answers.
So for most humans who have ever lived, God is by far the most logical conclusion to the data we given us in this universe.
There’s that equivocation again. If you mean logical in the sense of reasonable (as “most logical” must mean), I probably won’t contest you. Logical as in “the only logical non-physical possibility” is another matter, which I don’t believe can be demonstrated to be true. To be clear, I’m not denying that you can use logic or logical thought processes in reaching the conclusions that you have.