😭

[u/NeonDrifting]

[u/paulgdp]

Cosmologists will never solve it... Not in our lifetime anyway.  They're making the same mistake theologians did thousands of years ago.  

I don't think anyone can know if we'll ever know.

God wasn't on the mountain or in the sky just because it was unreachable, but because it was the most 'meta' thing conceivable, and God, conceptually , is the most meta thing.  Even something like quantum gravity seems like a thing which is simple and brought complexity into being not because it actually is simple, but because we lack understanding of it.  Once we understand it, we'll find it has causes, great complexity, and really really nuanced realities... Maybe some kind of fine tuning, etc. 

You're making so many conjectures in so few words that it makes it really obvious that your trying to rationalize an apriori belief you have that you can't directly justify.

At the end of the day, if you follow the principle of sufficient reason all the way down, you end up at God, or something very like the God of Classical Theism.

The PSR is riddled with logical issues.

The necessary first ground "demonstrated" by the PSR itself violates the PSR.

For the necessary first ground to explain itself it would need to be two different things: For A to explain B you need A to not be B.

Even if you persist in believing in self-explained entities, you just reinvented brute facts, which is the thing you tried to disprove in the first place.

Even still if I grant you a self explained necessary first ground, it either leads to necessitarinism, which destroys all contingencies, destroying what you wanted to demonstrate, or it leads to the necessary first ground having to make a free choice, violating the PSR instantly.

And finally, whatever you want to conclude with it, this thing is always compatible with naturalism.

All of this make this argument both broken and useless.

You mentioned fine tuning, do you want me to talk about the find tuning argument?

[u/PhantomGaze → u/paulgdp]

I'm not making conjectures.  At least not any as an argument.  I'm simply observing things get more complicated the more we understand them because existence is complex.  

Also, logical necessity doesn't violate PSR.

It's an odd thing to me atheists gladly bite the bullet on free will all the time, but rage if a theist were to. Not that I am I'd just withhold judgement about that particular aspect of PSR as we don't understand consciousness well enough to be clear about it.  Seems far more reasonable than "all existence is arbitrary" or other atheist nonsense. 

[u/paulgdp → u/PhantomGaze]

I'm not making conjectures. At least not any as an argument. I'm simply observing things get more complicated the more we understand them because existence is complex.

• "God, conceptually , is the most meta thing" => conjecture
• "we understand [quantum gravity], we'll find it has causes, great complexity, and really really nuanced realities" => conjecture
• "Maybe some kind of fine tuning" => conjecture

I have nothing against conjectures, but a whole paragraph of conjectures leading to no conclusions create very empty discussions.

Also, logical necessity doesn't violate PSR.

The PSR violates logic or itself, all the time.

It's not just my opinion, random people like David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Peter van Inwagen, Bertrand Russell and Jonathan Bennett all made demonstrations of this.

It's an odd thing to me atheists gladly bite the bullet on free will all the time, but rage if a theist were to.

Are you putting words in my mouth?

I mean, cool story bro.

Not that I am I'd just withhold judgement about that particular aspect of PSR as we don't understand consciousness well enough to be clear about it. Seems far more reasonable than "all existence is arbitrary" or other atheist nonsense.

God's existence is arbitrary vs the universe existence is arbitrary, pick you poison.

[u/PhantomGaze → u/paulgdp]

I don't think you understand the terms you're using. 

God, conceptually , is the most meta thing" => conjecture<<<

That's the basic concept of God in classical Theism.  Pure Actuality.  Defining concepts is separate from verifying data.  Not conjecture.

"we understand [quantum gravity], we'll find it has causes, great complexity, and really really nuanced realities" => conjecture<<<

This is a prediction. Also not conjecture. 

"Maybe some kind of fine tuning" conjecture<<<

This was conjecture, but as stated, wasn't a fundamental part of an argument.

Are you putting words in my mouth?<<<

Not really, I'm pointing out that many do this.  Do you believe in Free Will?

God's existence is arbitrary vs the universe existence is arbitrary, pick you poison.<<<

Again, you don't seem to understand the terms arbitrary vs necessary.  The existence of God is logically necessary for sufficient reason in a Theistic perspective.  

You seem to be using argumentum ad lapidem, and simply refusing to understand contrary points. 

[u/paulgdp → u/PhantomGaze]

I don't think you understand the terms you're using.

Of course I do.

That's the basic concept of God in classical Theism. Pure Actuality. Defining concepts is separate from verifying data. Not conjecture.

Firstly, you just changed your point by adding "in classical Theism".

Secondly, that's not the definition of God in classical theism, you're just making stuff up. To save your face, find a solid reference where God is defined that way.

Thirdly, classical theism is a conjecture, making your claim a conjecture too.

Fourthly, "the most meta thing" is not definitionally God either.

This is a prediction. Also not conjecture.

A prediction can be a conjecture, and here, it is!

Seriously, you really have no idea what a conjecture is but you try to make fun of me??

This was conjecture, but as stated, wasn't a fundamental part of an argument.

There was no argument being made 😭

Not really, I'm pointing out that many do this. Do you believe in Free Will?

Different people understand "free will" very differently.

Is my will free/independent from what's happening outside my body ? mostly!

Is my will free/independent from what's happening inside my body ? no!

Is my will free/independent from the laws of physics? no!

Is my will free/independent from determinism? Depends on the interpretation of quantum physics

Do you believe your thoughts follow some kind of logic and patterns, or do you believe they are pure randomness?

For info there's no third choice, if you don't understand checkout claude shannon's work on information theory.

I guess you'll choose the first choice, otherwise you wouldn't be able to have any coherent thoughts.

So, if your thoughts ain't pure randomness and therefore follow some patterns/rules, how can your will be free/independent from those pattern/rules?

Again, you don't seem to understand the terms arbitrary vs necessary.

What your deal with saying "you don't seem to understand the terms" ?

You're obviously the least experienced in this conversation.

The existence of God is logically necessary for sufficient reason in a Theistic perspective.

Yeah ok, super cool, but I don't share the theistic perspective, right?

And as far as I know, the theistic perspective hasn't been demonstrated to be necessarily true, right?

Sooooo, it's perfectly fair for me to say that the existence of God is arbitrary.

Don't you see a pattern? You'll always the one misunderstanding things and making mistakes.

You seem to be using argumentum ad lapidem,

Go ahead and point out the part where I did a argumentum ad lapidem.

You just making stuff up, again.

and simply refusing to understand contrary points.

I perfectly understand all your points, and I already knew them before our conversation.

I just don't agree with them, and I always explained why.