Free Counselling for Theists!

[Swami Dring]

I'll vary that just a bit... obviously something in the nature of gods is their capacity to create. These gods I speak of then, or possibly only one of them, were/was responsible for the creation of the multiverse. But that is not to say that they created the multiverse as we understand it now, rather they gave to the void the physical principles upon which existence relies. These gods are geeks of mathematical proportions.

What evidence can you present to support your claim that this/these god(s) created the universe/gave to the void the physical principles.....?

Who created this/these god(s)?

My evidence is the universe which shows itself to continually re-create itself suggesting an original creation event or original cause. Creation is a directed activity and the rules that direct it are found in physics. My gods created the physics of this universe and I assume the multiverse in general.
I do not know who created the god/s.

What evidence can you present to support your claim that your gods created the physics of this universe?

[Swami Dring]

So John Edwards, Doris Stokes, Benny Hinn and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh are all on the sixth floor and Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Isaac Newton are on the first floor. Good one, Ken.

Why invoke those names rather than Ramana Maharshi or Jiddu Krishnamurti? Recall renowned physicist David Bohm spent many years dialoging with Krishnamurti. Why did Bohm, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, have an interest in Krishnamurti, do you think?

I invoked those names because people who make claims of the supernatural and then provide zero evidence are all the same in my eyes. Bullshitters.

This is part of what wiki says about Krishnamurti:

"Denouncing the concept of saviors, spiritual leaders, or any other intermediaries to reality, he urged people to directly discover the underlying causes of the problems facing individuals and society. Such discovery he considered as being within reach of everyone, irrespective of background, ability, or disposition. He declared allegiance to no nationality, caste, religion, or philosophy........"

The dude seems to have his head screwed on and is not religious. What is weird about Bohm communicating with him?

[Outlaw Yogi]

Interesting name Krishnamurti ... translates in sanskrit as 'krishna incarnation' .. although 'murti' in simple terms means 'solid shape or form' ... and was also the name of an historical hindu rishi .. 'rishi' in sanskrit is equivalent of/to prophet.

Interesting that is, considering Krishna [krisna] remains hindu's most popular messianic saviour character, contrasted with Swami's wiki quote :

Denouncing the concept of saviors, spiritual leaders, or any other intermediaries to reality

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-kris ... chings.php

The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said, “Truth is a pathless land”. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

Man has built in himself images as a fence of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all humanity. So he is not an individual.

[Sappho]

What evidence can you present to support your claim that your gods created the physics of this universe?

I have no evidence. Nor has science evidence to the contrary. I am using faith... the same faith you use when you believe the sun to rise tomorrow.

[boxy]

We have plenty of evidence that the sun rises every day. We've tested the theory extensively.

Try it tomorrow morning. Get up early and look.

There's nothing like independantly testable theories.

How have you tested your "god did it" theory? How can I confirm your results?

Don't try to equate your internal musings with science. That's the path of the young earth creationist.

[Sappho]

We have plenty of evidence that the sun rises every day. We've tested the theory extensively.

Try it tomorrow morning. Get up early and look.

There's nothing like independantly testable theories.

How have you tested your "god did it" theory? How can I confirm your results?

Don't try to equate your internal musings with science. That's the path of the young earth creationist.

Science will tell you that whilst it is highly improbable that the sun will not rise, it is not impossible: that just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it will not happen. Science would also give you a list of reasons as to why the sun may not rise tomorrow.

Otherwise, to be more accurate, we have plenty of evidence that the sun HAS risen in the past, but no evidence that it will rise tomorrow. We merely assume, at the highest level of assumption known as faith, that it will based on past experience.

On your final point... I can only revert to logic.
If my god/s created physical laws of existence then there would be physical laws of existence in existence.
There are physical laws of existence in existence
Therefore, my god/s have created them.

[TomB]

Science will tell you that whilst it is highly improbable that the sun will not rise, it is not impossible: "................

Actually, you are willfully misusing "science" to your ends and doing so badly. Science would really tell you that the sun doesn't rise at all.

[Sappho]

Science will tell you that whilst it is highly improbable that the sun will not rise, it is not impossible: "................

Actually, you are willfully misusing "science" to your ends and doing so badly. Science would actually tell you that the sun doesn't rise at all.

A common turn of phase that is well understood by all, yet does not describe the movement of stars and planets resulting in the perception of a sunrise, does not discount the claim being made. Strawmen, such as yours, are petty.

[TomB]

Unfortunately for you, in this instance you are trying to justify an unprovable position with something (science) which by it's very definition must be provable hence my response is not a straw man. If you cannot use such an argument pedantically it should not be used at all.

[boxy]

We have plenty of evidence that the sun rises every day. We've tested the theory extensively.

Try it tomorrow morning. Get up early and look.

There's nothing like independantly testable theories.

How have you tested your "god did it" theory? How can I confirm your results?

Don't try to equate your internal musings with science. That's the path of the young earth creationist.

Science will tell you that whilst it is highly improbable that the sun will not rise, it is not impossible: that just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it will not happen. Science would also give you a list of reasons as to why the sun may not rise tomorrow.

Otherwise, to be more accurate, we have plenty of evidence that the sun HAS risen in the past, but no evidence that it will rise tomorrow. We merely assume, at the highest level of assumption known as faith, that it will based on past experience.

There are two things at play here, axioms and probablities.

Firstly, it is an axiom of science that the laws of nature are constants. This is a necessary, and philosophically defensible requirement of science. Without this assumption, there is only history. No predictive abilities at all.

Does this mean that we are unsure if the sun will rise in the morning? No, not at all.

Secondly, there is going to be a day when the sun doesn't rise. The probability that that day will be tommorrow is ridiculously small though. One day the sun will expand to engulf our tiny planet, if earth even survives that long, given the unavoidable cosmic battering that all planets take. You see, science weighs the probablities of it's predictions on the evidence available.

On your final point... I can only revert to logic.
If my god/s created physical laws of existence then there would be physical laws of existence in existence.
There are physical laws of existence in existence
Therefore, my god/s have created them.

You revert to a circular logic. God exists, therefore he created existance.

No evidence, no reasonable axioms, no testability, no probabilities... no defence.