Meta-Universe and God

[neo-x]

jlay on Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:01 am

you're not the first Ken, no one knows, not even the most advanced physicists in the world. If I show you a pic of a child and ask you, whose baby is this? you'd say, you don't know. But you sure as hell, would know, that it has parents.



Love it!!

[MarcusOfLycia]

"We create our own morality" is absurd, and unfortunately is not a very flattering thing for one to say... it is a thoroughly worthless non-philosophical statement.

Your failure to understand the implications the statement presents does not make the statement absurd. It may not be pleasant for you to think about but that takes nothing away from it. It is simply something that does not conform to your world view so you've decided to color negatively. However, it speaks to the realist in me and it is comforting that I am not being judged on values that I do not hold, that I can create for myself what I think is right and wrong, beneficial and not beneficial to society, respectable and not. In a way it is the most flattering thing one can say because it doesn't assume that one has to be a slave to someone else's moral code, one that in my eyes is outdated and superficial, to live a good life.

I understand it completely! It is a very common postmodern form of philosophy which states that morality is individualistic. But it is also poor philosophy. You are, in fact, proving its shortcomings in your posts. First, if you are not a slave to someone else's moral code, you are a slave to your own (and are any of us sufficienity qualified to establish a comprehensive moral code?) Second, you are suggesting a 'good life' is possible to live, you are establishing that what you believe is superior to what I believe, and at the same time suggesting that morality is up to the individual. If you really believe morality and ethics are individualistic, how can you condemn me for my views? Stick to your own, if that's the case.

All of this ignores the more major implications of such a worldview, like contradictions between people's moralties, how to establish courts and laws, etc. There is a reason this worldview doesn't really stand up against others. Moral relativism and postmodernism are not very strong philisophical systems.

So it isn't that I don't understand. You don't think I've talked with people who also believe in moral relativism? That's all you're advocating here.

Furthermore, please explain some of the things you say. If you call something absurd, explain why you think it's absurd. It just makes conversation flow smoother.

The point I was originally trying to make is that your definition of the natural encompasses literally every possibility. In that case, you already accept the plausability (possibility, and I dare-say even likelihood) of the supernatural. But by suggesting that the natural can encompass all things known and all things not known (including those things we can never know), you can avoid saying you believe in the supernatural.

Why would I "believe" in something I've never seen and have no evidence of? I do accept the possibility but I wouldn't say likelihood, especially since its the only possibility that literally has no evidence what so ever while several others at least have basis in the fact that they can be witnessed and possibly tested. Saying that I should accept it as likely is absurd when there are still possibilities that do not require events so far unseen left to explore.

"Literally no evidence" is shallow and unresearched. Evidence exists. It is the interpretation of evidence we disagree about.

And you should accept the supernatural as likely, since your definition of what 'natural' is encompasses what most theist's definition of 'supernatural' is.

It is, unfortunately, playing with definitions. If we can define the 'natural' as cause-and-effect, then the supernatural is the only explanation for anything- it explains a First Cause. However, if you redefine 'natural' to mean 'existent', you remove the barrier between what used to be distinguished.

Say the meta-universe always existed, no beginning, much like God. Would that be supernatural? I don't think so. It obeys its own laws. But what gets me is, with so little information and nothing more than philosophical basis for argumentation, how can you be so sure of anything? Would you suggest that even if I come to the conclusion that the supernatural is likely, that I should also conclude that the supernatural must also be conscious and attribute to it the whole host of Christian implications of what God should be? That level of certainty in this context can never be concluded without a certain level of arrogance.

There has been much discussion on the topic of the nature of God's existence as opposed to the material world. The universe did not always exist (we now know more surely than ever with big bang cosmology). A universe creating itself is also impossible (that doesn't obey any of our observed laws). God is a necessary being, a First Cause (this argument is over 3000 years old, have you really neverh heard of it?) And again, there is plenty of evidence! It is in the worldview/philosphy/interpretation we find difference! So of course it is a philosophical debate we will have!

You unfortunately stop the discussion about the nature of God's existence early, though, and start getting into theology. Are we talking about God's existence or Christian theology here? I didn't bring up anything about why you should believe in the Christian God. I am trying to get you to affirm the likelihood of the supernatural. Don't change the subject.

Also, for the sake of all future talks, just remember that 'arrogance' cuts both ways. We are both sure of something; we are both defending something and trying to disprove something else. There's nothing arrogant about it. What might be considered arrogant is having enough faith in one's own abilities as to create their own comprehensive moral code. I don't think postmodernism answers that very well.

[Byblos]

It makes not a lick of difference whatsoever how many universes are postulated beyond ours. You end up with either infinite regress, which is utterly absurd and the death knell of science, indeed of reason itself, or you end up with a purposeful creation ex nihilo. Those are the only two option, there is no third. And guess which one science backs up?

Why is an infinite regress absurd and an infinite creator reasonable?

Because reason demands an intent to create (a first cause). Only an infinite, intelligent creator can form such intent (be the first cause).

[MarcusOfLycia]

It makes not a lick of difference whatsoever how many universes are postulated beyond ours. You end up with either infinite regress, which is utterly absurd and the death knell of science, indeed of reason itself, or you end up with a purposeful creation ex nihilo. Those are the only two option, there is no third. And guess which one science backs up?

Why is an infinite regress absurd and an infinite creator reasonable?

Because reason demands an intent to create (a first cause). Only an infinite, intelligent creator can form such intent (be the first cause).

Another point:

Why is an infinite creator absurd and infinite regress reasonable? (to atheists/agnostics)

[neo-x]

Another point:

Why is an infinite creator absurd and infinite regress reasonable? (to atheists/agnostics)

They don't want reasons, there are plenty to look if someone wanted to ...most just don't like the idea of a God. That's at the heart of the matter. Refusal to accept. It is a futile rebellion, as my brother Danny, once, so adequately put.

[DannyM]

Marcus' 4:31 pm post
-
-
-

[Byblos]

Marcus' 4:31 pm post
-
-
-

FYI, users in different time zones see different posting times. I see his post at 11:31 a.m. for example.

[KenV]

Another point:

Why is an infinite creator absurd and infinite regress reasonable? (to atheists/agnostics)

They don't want reasons, there are plenty to look if someone wanted to ...most just don't like the idea of a God. That's at the heart of the matter. Refusal to accept. It is a futile rebellion, as my brother Danny, once, so adequately put.

That is an incredibly shallow way to look at this debate. The only reason I would "not like the idea of God" is because it doesn't make sense to me. I have no beef with God, I simply think it seems silly to assume he must exist. If there were truly "plenty to look" then this debate wouldn't be such a normal thing.

I understand it completely! It is a very common postmodern form of philosophy which states that morality is individualistic. But it is also poor philosophy. You are, in fact, proving its shortcomings in your posts. First, if you are not a slave to someone else's moral code, you are a slave to your own (and are any of us sufficienity qualified to establish a comprehensive moral code?) Second, you are suggesting a 'good life' is possible to live, you are establishing that what you believe is superior to what I believe, and at the same time suggesting that morality is up to the individual. If you really believe morality and ethics are individualistic, how can you condemn me for my views? Stick to your own, if that's the case.

Exactly! Who is really qualified to say what morals we should adopt? And since I'm not convinced the Bible was written or even inspired by God, I don't feel it wise to adopt the morals of ancient people who felt it ok to stone homosexuals to death. In my moral code, belief in theology or not does not factor into being a good person or not. Your actions toward others is what matters, to me. I do not judge you for having faith and I'd hope others didn't judge me for not having faith.

All of this ignores the more major implications of such a worldview, like contradictions between people's moralties, how to establish courts and laws, etc. There is a reason this worldview doesn't really stand up against others. Moral relativism and postmodernism are not very strong philisophical systems.

If by not strong philosophical systems you mean they are up for interpretation by nearly everybody, perhaps. But there are certain things we can all agree on as morally wrong, like murder, stealing, etc. Merely adopting a set of morals you believe are inspired by God, and are also open for a major level of interpretation, is no more sturdy than what I live by.


[

"Literally no evidence" is shallow and unresearched. Evidence exists. It is the interpretation of evidence we disagree about.

Please tell me what evidence there is of the supernatural. I want actual evidence, not philosophical "what's more likely" type "evidence" but cold hard scientific evidence. You'll come up short.

And you should accept the supernatural as likely, since your definition of what 'natural' is encompasses what most theist's definition of 'supernatural' is.

No, a theist definition of supernatural is a being that transcends the laws in which he lives. My definition of naturalistic is events that happen as they obey the laws of the realm they occupy. They may overlap, the actions of a theistic God or the reactions of a naturalistic meta universe, but the difference is I do not make claim to understand the characteristics and actions of that force nor do I assume that those actions are otherwise impossible, simply that they are so far beyond my understanding as we lack information. How you could come to anything more certain than that is beyond me.

There has been much discussion on the topic of the nature of God's existence as opposed to the material world. The universe did not always exist (we now know more surely than ever with big bang cosmology). A universe creating itself is also impossible (that doesn't obey any of our observed laws). God is a necessary being, a First Cause (this argument is over 3000 years old, have you really neverh heard of it?) And again, there is plenty of evidence! It is in the worldview/philosphy/interpretation we find difference! So of course it is a philosophical debate we will have!

No, see, that's you assuming again. He is not a necessary being because you do not know what caused the universe. We've come full circle, you can't tell me what the meta universe has to be because you know absolutely nothing about it. You keep talking about philosophy as if it is evidence and it makes me wonder if you know what evidence is. There is no way a person like me is going to be swayed to make a decision of "Yes, God does exist" when there is any shred of credible doubt, and there is because you don't know what is beyond our universe. You don't know what created it and you shouldn't pretend to and you certainly shouldn't hide behind weak philosophy that ignores alternative possibilities in favor of what you think is more likely.

Really what it boils down to is you think that the first cause has to be God because you lack information on what properties the meta universe has. How do you justify making a decision like that without knowing 1. If a meta universe exist and 2. What propertie that meta universe is capable of? It seems without those 2 pieces of information you are simply answering prematurely with what feels right to you.

Also, for the sake of all future talks, just remember that 'arrogance' cuts both ways. We are both sure of something; we are both defending something and trying to disprove something else. There's nothing arrogant about it. What might be considered arrogant is having enough faith in one's own abilities as to create their own comprehensive moral code. I don't think postmodernism answers that very well.

[/quote]

The only thing I'm sure of is that I'm not sure of anything. I have not made a decision as to whether God exist or not, I don't see it as likely or unlikely, I see it as an equation that I do not have the necessary information to sufficiently answer. And I disagree that it is arrogant to create your own moral code, there are some fairly easy guidelines everyone is able to agree upon and it doesn't take a genius to understand that the Golden Rule is a good way to live life. What is arrogant is assuming your world view is correct and the moral code you've adopted is actually divinely ordained. I have more faith in myself to make right decisions than I do in mysterious 2000 year old theist (and I suppose later we will have a discussion about the validity of the Bible, I don't know how much I'd even trust the authors of the Bible as they were human beings).

[MarcusOfLycia]

Exactly! Who is really qualified to say what morals we should adopt? And since I'm not convinced the Bible was written or even inspired by God, I don't feel it wise to adopt the morals of ancient people who felt it ok to stone homosexuals to death. In my moral code, belief in theology or not does not factor into being a good person or not. Your actions toward others is what matters, to me. I do not judge you for having faith and I'd hope others didn't judge me for not having faith.

Ah, now that is different from what I was talking about. I didn't say no one could figure out what morals to adopt. I said no one was qualified to establish a comprehensive moral system. And I stand by it. Morality must be objective to be truly valuable. That means no human is qualified to establish it. But it doesn't mean people can't figure out what morality (objective moraltiy) is and can't adopt parts or all of it.

And, for what its worth, you did judge me and others in your previous posts and these. You judge things as true and false. Things outside of yourself. That is an attempt at objective truth and morality. But your worldview doesn't permit you this convenience.

If by not strong philosophical systems you mean they are up for interpretation by nearly everybody, perhaps. But there are certain things we can all agree on as morally wrong, like murder, stealing, etc. Merely adopting a set of morals you believe are inspired by God, and are also open for a major level of interpretation, is no more sturdy than what I live by.

Agreement is what is required for something to be moral? See, this is the failing of the system. Murder and rape were acceptable (according to some biologists) to early man. If they became acceptable again, would they be okay? In the end, the only thing a materialist can suggest as moral is something that coincides with evolution, but then again, that removes love, hope, mercy, etc. Those contradict survival of the fittest.

My philosophical worldview is undergirded by 3000 years of philisophical inquiry. From Plato to Augistine to Chesterton, I find one continuous flow of philosophy that helps me make sense of the world. Postmodernism... is a shell of a system in comparison. It is precisely that it is not open to interpretation that causes it to fail. How can one interpret a system which permits no inquiry of other's beliefs because it values one's ability to create beliefs over the beliefs themselves?

Please tell me what evidence there is of the supernatural. I want actual evidence, not philosophical "what's more likely" type "evidence" but cold hard scientific evidence. You'll come up short.

There's a little website called godandscience.com. Its the site attached to this forum. Have you read through the evidence there? Have you read Aquinas' Summa Theologica and other works on apologetics? Have you visited the Reasons to Believe or Reasonable Faith websites? Lots of evidence. Have you looked into it?

Circuimstancial evidence is overwhelming for me. If you want a brief summary, there is something rather than nothing (in a universe where all things follow cause-and-effect). I know my own heart, I know my own feelings, and I know I exist. I see the history of it all. I see the profound truth in a religion much older than you give it credit for, and much wiser than you seem to be willing to admit, too. All these things and many more lead me to a place where I have to make an interprative decision.

And you should accept the supernatural as likely, since your definition of what 'natural' is encompasses what most theist's definition of 'supernatural' is.

No, a theist definition of supernatural is a being that transcends the laws in which he lives. My definition of naturalistic is events that happen as they obey the laws of the realm they occupy. They may overlap, the actions of a theistic God or the reactions of a naturalistic meta universe, but the difference is I do not make claim to understand the characteristics and actions of that force nor do I assume that those actions are otherwise impossible, simply that they are so far beyond my understanding as we lack information. How you could come to anything more certain than that is beyond me.

You don't define naturalism that way. You allow naturalism to be self-creating and/or eternal. Nothing we've ever seen ever let us think that way. Those are assumptions (which you criticize me for).

The reason, and this is VERY important, that a theist can feel confident is that we have another source of information: revelation. You exclusively ignore that form of evidence. But we aren't even there yet. Before that debate even makes sense, you have to acknowledge that a First Cause is necessary.

No, see, that's you assuming again. He is not a necessary being because you do not know what caused the universe. We've come full circle, you can't tell me what the meta universe has to be because you know absolutely nothing about it. You keep talking about philosophy as if it is evidence and it makes me wonder if you know what evidence is. There is no way a person like me is going to be swayed to make a decision of "Yes, God does exist" when there is any shred of credible doubt, and there is because you don't know what is beyond our universe. You don't know what created it and you shouldn't pretend to and you certainly shouldn't hide behind weak philosophy that ignores alternative possibilities in favor of what you think is more likely.

I know full well what evidence is. And I know the importance of properly interpretting evidence. I think the most accurate thing you've said is "There is no way a person like me is going to be swayed to make a decision of 'Yes, God does exist' when there is any shred of credible doubt". Really? Your standard for evidence is terrible. With such a standard, you can't even confirm your own existence, the existence of your arguments, or just about anythinge else. Such a standard would make a worthless juror.

It would be unwise to suggest I ignore alternatives. I have spent more time over the last three-four years 'examining alternatives' than I care to admit. I'm very interested in this stuff. But at the end of the day, the evidence, the arguments, and the experience combine to give me, beyond a reasonable doubt, confidence in my beliefs. If you find that arrogant or unnerving, I feel sorry for you.

Really what it boils down to is you think that the first cause has to be God because you lack information on what properties the meta universe has. How do you justify making a decision like that without knowing 1. If a meta universe exist and 2. What propertie that meta universe is capable of? It seems without those 2 pieces of information you are simply answering prematurely with what feels right to you.

We all have the same information. But again, you are giving the 'meta universe' attributes that make it God. If the 'meta universe' can create ex nihilo, can produce intelligent life, can fine tune a universe, can exist from nothing, and is eternal, you have basically renamed the god of deism! And to be honest, at this point I'm only trying to make the case for such a god. To be completely fair, you do disagree on the point of morality (a deist would acknowledge rules set forth by the deistic god that form the basis for morality). However, you do -act- as though such morals exist (you are trying to correct what you see as an error, you believe your worldview is superior to others, etc). Maybe you are a deist.

The only thing I'm sure of is that I'm not sure of anything. I have not made a decision as to whether God exist or not, I don't see it as likely or unlikely, I see it as an equation that I do not have the necessary information to sufficiently answer. And I disagree that it is arrogant to create your own moral code, there are some fairly easy guidelines everyone is able to agree upon and it doesn't take a genius to understand that the Golden Rule is a good way to live life. What is arrogant is assuming your world view is correct and the moral code you've adopted is actually divinely ordained. I have more faith in myself to make right decisions than I do in mysterious 2000 year old theist (and I suppose later we will have a discussion about the validity of the Bible, I don't know how much I'd even trust the authors of the Bible as they were human beings).

Viewing the universe as an equation may be the problem. It is impossible to imagine God's existence in a universe you pressupose could never have a god.

You aren't forming your own moral code, either. You are adopting things from someone else's moral code (Christianity's code, actually). This is what I suggested earlier is the only thing people can really ever do: affirm or deny objective morality.

Also, you keep going back for pot-shots on the origin of Christianity. I wouldn't go there... this isn't the right thread, and this debate is still on the essentials of understanding Epistimology, ethics, and metaphysics (ie, we haven't left worldview yet).

[Byblos]

Please tell me what evidence there is of the supernatural. I want actual evidence, not philosophical "what's more likely" type "evidence" but cold hard scientific evidence. You'll come up short.

Huh? You are discounting philosophy as evidence? You've just simply invalidated all of reason and rational thought. Without philosophy there is not point to even have a discussion, no less talk about cold hard scientific evidence.

[jlay]

I simply think it seems silly to assume he must exist.

So what? This is arbitrary. We can just as easily say, it is silly not to assume he must exist.
Statements like this mean NOTHING.

Exactly! Who is really qualified to say what morals we should adopt?

Hmmmmmm?

I don't feel it wise to adopt the morals of ancient people who felt it ok to stone homosexuals to death.

Wait, you just said that no one is qualified. Yet you are judging morals. Based on what?

Please tell me what evidence there is of the supernatural. I want actual evidence, not philosophical "what's more likely" type "evidence" but cold hard scientific evidence. You'll come up short.

Well, it is a loaded, self-defeating question. Natural, by definition has to do with things within nature. The universe is nature. If something exist beyond the universe then guess what,....supernatural. Multiveres, etc. are supernatural concepts. Basically a god without conscience or morality. So, be consistent. If the universe began, then whatever began it, is supernatural.

[KenV]

I absolutely hate these long post lol, I have other forums and when they start going like this I just dread coming back to the page, work and everything barely permits me time for such long debates with so many people but I'll do it as frequently as I can. I enjoy the talk but it's just a lot.

Also, I reallydislike philosophical arguments. It just seems a little silly to me, too open to interpretation and personal emotion. I feel like if you are going to try to convince someone of that validity of your claims and give the likeliness of a diety's existence, there should be something slightly tangible. How many great minds had their philosophies shattered with new discoveries? What insight can one gain through philosophical argumentation that can't be more accurately obtained through cold hard fact in science?

Ah, now that is different from what I was talking about. I didn't say no one could figure out what morals to adopt. I said no one was qualified to establish a comprehensive moral system. And I stand by it. Morality must be objective to be truly valuable. That means no human is qualified to establish it. But it doesn't mean people can't figure out what morality (objective moraltiy) is and can't adopt parts or all of it.

Then who established your moral code? I don't know of any moral system that was truly formed by anyone but humans.

If by not strong philosophical systems you mean they are up for interpretation by nearly everybody, perhaps. But there are certain things we can all agree on as morally wrong, like murder, stealing, etc. Merely adopting a set of morals you believe are inspired by God, and are also open for a major level of interpretation, is no more sturdy than what I live by.

Agreement is what is required for something to be moral? See, this is the failing of the system. Murder and rape were acceptable (according to some biologists) to early man. If they became acceptable again, would they be okay? In the end, the only thing a materialist can suggest as moral is something that coincides with evolution, but then again, that removes love, hope, mercy, etc. Those contradict survival of the fittest.

No no, you picked out a piece of my statement and focused in on it way too much. I'm not saying agreement is a pre requisite, I'll watch what I say more carefully. That statement was made to say that it is obvious that certain things are wrong from a biological and universally emotional sense. And love, hope, and mercy are products of evolution. They are products of a more developed mind and human body. They do not contradict survival of the fittest because they gave motivation to survive and to protect. To build and to innovate. They are perfectly compatible emotions with evolution and are perfectly explainable by science.

My philosophical worldview is undergirded by 3000 years of philisophical inquiry. From Plato to Augistine to Chesterton, I find one continuous flow of philosophy that helps me make sense of the world. Postmodernism... is a shell of a system in comparison. It is precisely that it is not open to interpretation that causes it to fail. How can one interpret a system which permits no inquiry of other's beliefs because it values one's ability to create beliefs over the beliefs themselves?

Sorry this confused me too much for me to make an accurate response. Again, philosophy... too flowery for my taste I suppose. What is wrong with presenting facts about something and arguing over those facts? And again, before I could answer, I'd need to know what moral code you have chosen because without that I can't really compare my code to yours. To continue this arm of the conversation I need to know who specifically designed your code, what it entails.

Please tell me what evidence there is of the supernatural. I want actual evidence, not philosophical "what's more likely" type "evidence" but cold hard scientific evidence. You'll come up short.

There's a little website called godandscience.com. Its the site attached to this forum. Have you read through the evidence there? Have you read Aquinas' Summa Theologica and other works on apologetics? Have you visited the Reasons to Believe or Reasonable Faith websites? Lots of evidence. Have you looked into it?

Well if you read the very first post I made here I explain that I did read the entire site on that section and that is exactly what got me here. I'll go back to the beginning, there was no scientific evidence. The site author's reasoning for believing in a God is that life is extremely fragile and for it to even exist it takes incredibly precise physics to obtain. His reasoning goes that since it was so small he sees design. However, my problem with that is is the concept of the meta universe (or any number of naturalistic explanations). He doesn't like the meta universe idea because it doesn't have any proof, but then I say neither does supernatural. He also seems to think that testing the meta universe's existence is impossible and always will be impossible, but that is untrue today and I suspect it will proof to be less true in the future. I mean we already can test for extra dimensions. His view on this is very short sighted. And then, since he thinks the meta universe is unfalsifiable that it is more likely that there is a supernatural force. However, to me it seems like he just went with a gut instinct to choose God over the meta universe. I would be just as presumptuous if I chose the meta universe idea over the possibility of God, but I haven't. I still choose to believe that since I do not know what created the universe I can't make a rational decision on which exist. My gut feeling is that supernatural things don't exist because I've never seen them and they seem fanciful, but that is not a decision or a belief.

Circuimstancial evidence is overwhelming for me. If you want a brief summary, there is something rather than nothing (in a universe where all things follow cause-and-effect). I know my own heart, I know my own feelings, and I know I exist. I see the history of it all. I see the profound truth in a religion much older than you give it credit for, and much wiser than you seem to be willing to admit, too. All these things and many more lead me to a place where I have to make an interprative decision.

So you're willing to admit you do not know for certain? This is the key difference between us, my gut feeling is the opposite of yours. I see random chance, I see humans trying to make sense of things at a point in time where they weren't able to make any informed decisions and I see people accepting it for reasons wholly unrelated to a logically thought out reasons. But you don't "have to make an interpretative decision". I didn't, why should you have to? You don't answer math equations when you don't know what the equation is, so why put down an answer without all the relevant data?

You don't define naturalism that way. You allow naturalism to be self-creating and/or eternal. Nothing we've ever seen ever let us think that way. Those are assumptions (which you criticize me for).

Ruling things out that we don't understand is making assumptions. Leaving the answer blank as something you don't understand is being open minded. We don't even know what would qualify as supernatural in a universe we don't live in. We don't know if time exist in the meta universe, we don't know enough of its properties and a lack of information doesn't make it "super natural".

The reason, and this is VERY important, that a theist can feel confident is that we have another source of information: revelation. You exclusively ignore that form of evidence. But we aren't even there yet. Before that debate even makes sense, you have to acknowledge that a First Cause is necessary.

I acknowledge that a "First Cause" is necessary... for our current universe. I will NEVER admit that a first cause is necessary for the meta universe UNTIL we have scientific data on it. Until we understand it better. That's scientifically deaf to make a claim that you have no data for.

Really what it boils down to is you think that the first cause has to be God because you lack information on what properties the meta universe has. How do you justify making a decision like that without knowing 1. If a meta universe exist and 2. What propertie that meta universe is capable of? It seems without those 2 pieces of information you are simply answering prematurely with what feels right to you.

We all have the same information. But again, you are giving the 'meta universe' attributes that make it God. If the 'meta universe' can create ex nihilo, can produce intelligent life, can fine tune a universe, can exist from nothing, and is eternal, you have basically renamed the god of deism! And to be honest, at this point I'm only trying to make the case for such a god. To be completely fair, you do disagree on the point of morality (a deist would acknowledge rules set forth by the deistic god that form the basis for morality). However, you do -act- as though such morals exist (you are trying to correct what you see as an error, you believe your worldview is superior to others, etc). Maybe you are a deist.

It is much like God in that sense. But I don't see a problem with that. I don't think attributing some extraordinary abilities to the greater universe, as a possibility, makes it comparable to "God". I don't believe that the meta universe is god because it doesn't make choices. It just acts on its own laws. It created our universe to be "Fined tuned" (and that is a misnomer if I've ever seen one) for life by random chance because it does it trillions of times over. We are a by product of a chain of events, in this scenario, not by decision. That's the key difference. That's why I'm not a deist.

The only thing I'm sure of is that I'm not sure of anything. I have not made a decision as to whether God exist or not, I don't see it as likely or unlikely, I see it as an equation that I do not have the necessary information to sufficiently answer. And I disagree that it is arrogant to create your own moral code, there are some fairly easy guidelines everyone is able to agree upon and it doesn't take a genius to understand that the Golden Rule is a good way to live life. What is arrogant is assuming your world view is correct and the moral code you've adopted is actually divinely ordained. I have more faith in myself to make right decisions than I do in mysterious 2000 year old theist (and I suppose later we will have a discussion about the validity of the Bible, I don't know how much I'd even trust the authors of the Bible as they were human beings).

You aren't forming your own moral code, either. You are adopting things from someone else's moral code (Christianity's code, actually). This is what I suggested earlier is the only thing people can really ever do: affirm or deny objective morality.

Where the creators of Christianity not humans? Did they not observe similar morals and laws before Christianity? I know for a fact many Mediterranean cultures followed similar moral codes to my own long before the invention of Christianity.

Also, you keep going back for pot-shots on the origin of Christianity. I wouldn't go there... this isn't the right thread, and this debate is still on the essentials of understanding Epistimology, ethics, and metaphysics (ie, we haven't left worldview yet).

Hard not to talk about Christianity when that is the faith you have adopted and I have to assume the christian moral code is what you are referring.

Well, it is a loaded, self-defeating question. Natural, by definition has to do with things within nature. The universe is nature. If something exist beyond the universe then guess what,....supernatural. Multiveres, etc. are supernatural concepts. Basically a god without conscience or morality. So, be consistent. If the universe began, then whatever began it, is supernatural.

It's supernatural in the sense that it has different laws than our inhabited universe. Yes, it is a lot like God without a conscience. But that's not supernatural. Supernatural would imply that the meta universe has no laws, that it has powers beyond a gigantic mathematical equation. That it can break from that equation when ever it sees fit and intervene in any area it please.

[MarcusOfLycia]

You should really go examine some of the evidence I posted.

Also, I don't think you're going to get far with anyone if you want to avoid 'silly philosophical debates'.

Philosophy = Worldview = Our Way of Interpreting Evidence

Without respecting and understanding this fact, evidence is worthless. Absolutely worthless. Until this point is understood, we are having two separate arguments.

[Reactionary]

Also, I really dislike philosophical arguments. It just seems a little silly to me, too open to interpretation and personal emotion.

Again, philosophy... too flowery for my taste I suppose. What is wrong with presenting facts about something and arguing over those facts?

KenV, you seem to fail to understand that philosophy is the basis of knowledge, our perception of truth and interpretation of facts. Without a proper philosophical framework, you can't be sure that those "facts" you mention exist at all. You can't even be sure that you exist. Indeed, what is "I"? Is it tangible? Measurable? Changeable? We're talking about immaterial concepts which naturalism can not account for. According to naturalism, our thoughts are mere electric discharges and chemical reactions, so why should we believe that they are true?

I feel like if you are going to try to convince someone of that validity of your claims and give the likeliness of a diety's existence, there should be something slightly tangible.

My best evidence in favour of theism is the very fact that I think and exist (Cogito ergo sum). I chose theism because, unlike naturalism, it can account for knowledge. I believe it would be self-refuting if I adhered to a philosophy that denies knowledge in the first place.

How many great minds had their philosophies shattered with new discoveries?

I don't know, but what I know is that Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy has been around for very, very long time and still hasn't been refuted. So, proponents of naturalism, not being able to challenge it, instead rejected philosophy in general. Brilliant.

That statement was made to say that it is obvious that certain things are wrong from a biological and universally emotional sense. And love, hope, and mercy are products of evolution. They are products of a more developed mind and human body. They do not contradict survival of the fittest because they gave motivation to survive and to protect. To build and to innovate

I'm afraid that now you seem too "open to interpretation and personal emotion". Cold hard scientific facts please.

I would be just as presumptuous if I chose the meta universe idea over the possibility of God, but I haven't. I still choose to believe that since I do not know what created the universe I can't make a rational decision on which exist.

One nasty thing that happens when you reject philosophy (actually, accept naturalistic philosophy) is that you can't justify rationality - the reason why you come to your conclusions in the first place. A few paragraphs ago you said that love, hope and mercy are products of evolution. So why should reason be any different? If reason is a byproduct of evolution (in naturalism, it has to be since everything is), we can't know if it's reliable, it may be fooling us to give us survival (dis)advantages or whatever. Plus, how can you "choose" something? Chemical reactions don't have free will, they only obey the existing laws of physics and chemistry. You admitted yourself that:

I don't believe that the meta universe is god because it doesn't make choices. It just acts on its own laws.

...so, if the meta-universe doesn't have free will, how can it create beings with free will?

(N.B. Not to mention that "meta-universe" is just another poor attempt to explain away fine-tuning by moving the necessity of a first cause one step back, without a shred of evidence of course, but that's not what I'm trying to defend here - I'm trying to understand how pond scum can give rise to sentient beings that think abstractly and make decisions)

I see random chance, I see humans trying to make sense of things at a point in time where they weren't able to make any informed decisions and I see people accepting it for reasons wholly unrelated to a logically thought out reasons.

Define logic. Is it an immaterial concept? If yes, that's a defeater for naturalism. If it's an evolutionary trait, it can't be universal, therefore it's unreliable, "random" as you said yourself. Another defeater for naturalism.

KenV, I think I've made it clear that rejecting philosophy is like building a house without foundation. When you challenge its basis, it shatters to pieces. Unless you can put it back together... I haven't seen that happening yet, so I'd be curious to see how you respond to my objections. Thank you.

[neo-x]

(and I suppose later we will have a discussion about the validity of the Bible, I don't know how much I'd even trust the authors of the Bible as they were human beings).

Based on this, how much should we trust your sayings about the meta thing and all aren't you human?...or hey...arent the scientists that postulated the Multiverse, human?....you're not saying they are little green men in human masks?