Gravity just because

@KellyJay said
You are proposing a category error, God did not self-create, an eternal being didn't get created, neither did He create Himself.

An uncreated universe is neither more nor less plausible than an uncreated God.

@moonbus said
An uncreated universe is neither more nor less plausible than an uncreated God.

You boast of science giving you an edge in supporting your worldview, but now here you go against science claiming something not supported by science, an uncreated universe that would be one without a beginning. You turn on and off your acceptable evidence when it suits you, not exactly faith in what you claim to be the gold standard in evidence, acceptable now, but maybe later it's inconvenient so you can dismiss it.

@KellyJay said
You boast of science giving you an edge in supporting your worldview, but now here you go against science claiming something not supported by science, an uncreated universe that would be one without a beginning. You turn on and off your acceptable evidence when it suits you, not exactly faith in what you claim to be the gold standard in evidence, acceptable now, but maybe later it's inconvenient so you can dismiss it.

Logically, the most plausible explanation is the one which makes a) the fewest assumptions and b) the simplest assumptions.

Claiming that 'God did it' is one of the more complex and mysterious 'explanations' of how the universe came to be. It is complex because it assumes three elements: 1. a universe, 2. a creator, and 3. some act of creation or 'mechanism' HOW the creator did it. Now, how the God you believe in allegedly did it was by uttering power words, 'Let there be light.' This is not an explanation; this is Harry Pottering everything into existence from sheer nothing, no different to Harry Potter uttering some magical words and then something happens. It's not an explanation at all, it's belief in magic. 'Well, but God is like that, He can just DO that sort of thing. That's what it is to be God.' Nonsense, it is no more plausible than 'Harry Potter is like that, he can just DO that sort of thing. That's what it is to be a wizard.' An explanation must be less mysterious than what it purports to explain; God is the most mysterious thing there is, so appealing to 'God did it' is 'explaining' the mysterious by the even more mysterious. Not an explanation at all.

I might just point out here that 'God did it' does not yet prove WHICH God did it, Yahweh, or Marduk, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other gods humans have proposed since the last ice age. You would need yet another argument to prove that YOUR God did it rather than any other.

Less complex is Hawking's spontaneously self-creating universe, since it dispenses with one superfluous non-explanitory element, namely God. It does leave one wondering HOW this act of spontaneous self-creation comes about, but I suppose Hawking 'explains' it in his book (which I haven't read).

Logically, the simplest and least mysterious explanation is that the universe is uncreated and eternal. This dispenses with two superfluous elements: namely, a non-explanitory God/Creator and a mysterious act of creation HOW.

@moonbus said
Logically, the most plausible explanation is the one which makes a) the fewest assumptions and b) the simplest assumptions.

Claiming that 'God did it' is one of the more complex and mysterious 'explanations' of how the universe came to be. It is complex because it assumes three elements: 1. a universe, 2. a creator, and 3. some act of creation or 'mechanism' HOW the creato ...[text shortened]... wo superfluous elements: namely, a non-explanitory God/Creator and a mysterious act of creation HOW.

No, logically are the answers that do not cause conflicts in logic having different pieces of an explanation in conflict with other parts, neither do they have grand holes in the answers due to impossibilities having to be acceptable as factually accurate. The fewest and simplest assumptions you don't even have what you claim as plausible.

God is an active agent who explains all in that is quite simple, the complex mysterious ones are the "I don't know" ones that even if accepted piecemeal have very large issues where some parts simply don't fit with the rest of the explanation.

You can put up any other god's person with their attributes, and give a detailed account of what they did and why if you want. You will not, neither can you explain why there is something rather than nothing, nor can you account for the information-driven life, or how the universe itself is mathematically understandable.

@KellyJay said
No, logically are the answers that do not cause conflicts in logic having different pieces of an explanation in conflict with other parts, neither do they have grand holes in the answers due to impossibilities having to be acceptable as factually accurate. The fewest and simplest assumptions you don't even have what you claim as plausible.

Can you give some examples, or even one example of whatever it is you are talking about here?

@KellyJay said

You will not, neither can you explain why there is something rather than nothing, nor can you account for the information-driven life, or how the universe itself is mathematically understandable.

You are claiming that the universe isn’t mathematically understandable… on what basis are you claiming this?

@KellyJay said
No, logically are the answers that do not cause conflicts in logic having different pieces of an explanation in conflict with other parts, neither do they have grand holes in the answers due to impossibilities having to be acceptable as factually accurate. The fewest and simplest assumptions you don't even have what you claim as plausible.

God is an active agent who expl ...[text shortened]... ccount for the information-driven life, or how the universe itself is mathematically understandable.

The simplest explanation is that the universe is uncreated and eternal. No need for a separate creator entity (with a dubious proof if its existence) or a mysterious act of creation (with an even more dubious mechanism of transcendental causality).

Do let us know when you have a God detector up and running.

@moonbus said
The simplest explanation is that the universe is uncreated and eternal. No need for a separate creator entity (with a dubious proof if its existence) or a mysterious act of creation (with an even more dubious mechanism of transcendental causality).

Do let us know when you have a God detector up and running.

It being simple but running contrary to evidence is something you are willing to accept purely on the simplest nature of the answer? You are willing to cast out all evidence of a beginning giving the universe an age? How is an explanation with no guidance able to account for the intergraded systems in life, keeping it all simple? Where is the science for all of these?

@KellyJay said
It being simple but running contrary to evidence is something you are willing to accept purely on the simplest nature of the answer? You are willing to cast out all evidence of a beginning giving the universe an age? How is an explanation with no guidance able to account for the intergraded systems in life, keeping it all simple? Where is the science for all of these?

I am very interested in looking at evidence. For example, some of Hawking's speculations about the early history of the universe and black holes are on the verge of being empirically verified:

“All the hydrogen and helium that we have in our universe today was created in the first three minutes, and if enough of these primordial black holes [Hawking's hypothesis] were around until then, they would have impacted that process and those effects may be detectable,” Natarajan said.
“The fact that this is an observationally testable hypothesis is what I find really thrilling, aside from the fact that this suggests nature likely makes black holes starting from the earliest times through multiple pathways.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/17/science/black-holes-dark-matter-scn/index.html

My bold text.

Sorry, there is no mention of zebras or snakes (talking or mute) appearing in the first six days.

'God did it' is not an observationally testable hypothesis.

@moonbus said
I am very interested in looking at evidence. For example, some of Hawking's speculations about the early history of the universe and black holes are on the verge of being empirically verified:

“All the hydrogen and helium that we have in our universe today was created in the first three minutes, and if enough of these primordial black holes [Hawking's hypothesis] were aro ...[text shortened]... ute) appearing in the first six days.

'God did it' is not an observationally testable hypothesis.

Outstanding, but it has nothing to do with the current discussion. Neither does it explain his quote, nor does it help you in your quest to use science when it conveniently helps you and dismiss it when it doesn’t.

I also don’t recall making snakes or zebra part of my side of the discussion either. But if have some specific mechanism that scientists use to show how the instructions within each of those species got there I interested in seeing it.

@KellyJay said
Outstanding, but it has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Just what is “the current discussion”?

Why you don’t accept the scientific explanation of gravity?
Why you don’t think the universe is mathematically explainable?
Why your waving a Stephen Hawking quote out of the context of his book and asking for “the context”?
Why you don’t want to comment on your OP?
Why, like a child, ignore questions from people like myself ?
Why you ask for evidence from other people, and yet are unable to provide any yourself?

Take your pick Kellyjay.

@KellyJay said
Outstanding, but it has nothing to do with the current discussion. Neither does it explain his quote, nor does it help you in your quest to use science when it conveniently helps you and dismiss it when it doesn’t.

I also don’t recall making snakes or zebra part of my side of the discussion either. But if have some specific mechanism that scientists use to show how the instructions within each of those species got there I interested in seeing it.

You were the one who first brought Hawking into this discussion. Now you don't want to talk about him? His work on black holes is essential to our current understanding of the early history of the universe.

You also asked that I point out anything you believe in which is contradicted by well-established scientific evidence.

I ask you again can you produce something you call science to show me my errors in all of the different talks we have had, anything that is factual and not simply some inference that matches your worldview?

Here's one: there were no animals in the universe within six days of its inception (however that inception occurred): Gen 1:24-30; 2:7,15-25. Six days after inception, the universe was hot. Really hot.

@moonbus said
You were the one who first brought Hawking into this discussion. Now you don't want to talk about him? His work on black holes is essential to our current understanding of the early history of the universe.

You also asked that I point out anything you believe in which is contradicted by well-established scientific evidence.

[b]I ask you again can you produce something ...[text shortened]... ption occurred): Gen 1:24-30; 2:7,15-25. Six days after inception, the universe was hot. Really hot.

All history starts at the beginning, you ignore that with everything you have, even rejecting the topic as necessary. You spout off about real-time running processes as you do with everything else, as if you know all there is to know, when you don't know the first things about it. You want to tell everyone how the world and life work, based upon your assumptions on processes you know little about and cannot accurately describe how they began, where the pieces came from, why are they operating the way they do, and you mock creation because that is simply the topic of the beginning of all things, you ignore and mock it while having nothing to replace it with that answers all of the questions about life and the universe, you offer next to nothing.

From there what you do offer isn't simple, but conflicting, and where you do go simple is when you offer overly simplified explanations of highly complex processes, without delivering explanations from how everything started to why it operates the way it does now. You celebrate your ignorance as if that were a virtue on this topic, you cannot know, and there we agree.

@KellyJay said
All history starts at the beginning, you ignore that with everything you have, even rejecting the topic as necessary. You spout off about real-time running processes as you do with everything else, as if you know all there is to know, when you don't know the first things about it. You want to tell everyone how the world and life work, based upon your assumptions on p ...[text shortened]... elebrate your ignorance as if that were a virtue on this topic, you cannot know, and there we agree.

You seem to be a bit upset with moonbus.

@KellyJay said
All history starts at the beginning, you ignore that with everything you have, even rejecting the topic as necessary. You spout off about real-time running processes as you do with everything else, as if you know all there is to know, when you don't know the first things about it. You want to tell everyone how the world and life work, based upon your assumptions on p ...[text shortened]... elebrate your ignorance as if that were a virtue on this topic, you cannot know, and there we agree.

You weren't there when the Bible was written. You don't know whether anything written in the Bible really happened, because there is no evidence we can look at and analyse here and now. The body disappeared, you think? An empty tomb proves nothing. An empty tomb doesn't prove anyone was ever in it, much less that whoever might have been in it exited it in an unorthodox manner.


To understand "first things" we have to look at evidence which remains from the earliest period of our universe. The light from distant galaxies is something we can analyse here and now, and the more distant they are, the closer they are to the "first things" which happened in our universe. How old do you think the light from distant galaxies is by the time it arrives at one of our telescopes? Billions of years old, or only thousands? What say you?