Why did God create the universe?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Zosimus
Posts: 38
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Zosimus »

Sy Borg wrote: June 18th, 2021, 8:02 pmRequiring collateral is the same as requiring evidence, so you have proved my point. Why do you require evidence when it comes to small sums of money, yet you need no evidence at all to adopt beliefs that affect your entire life?
Requiring collateral is not the same as requiring evidence. I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be some amazing stuff. Puff, puff, pass, bro.

If you are making a loan and you require evidence, that means that you will want to know where the money will be spent. You will want proof that the person has the income he is stating. You will want to review his credit. You will evidence to indicate that he is going to keep his job.

Having collateral, on the other hand, is essentially saying, "As a policy, we don't lend money. Sell us your collateral and, on the indicated day, you can buy it back with interest. If you fail, we'll just sell it to someone else." No evidence is required.
No, if I t remind you of such Christians, then you are wildly wrong. The fact is that this is a philosophy forum, where claims are expected to be backed by evidence. Otherwise people will make any manner of claims, so unsubstantiated claims must be challenged.
No. A philosophy forum has nothing to do with evidence. Have you never heard of skepticism or rationalism? Have you never heard of Mary the Super Scientist or other Knowledge Arguments for the non-physical world? Your claims that evidence are required are akin to having a science forum but saying that all arguments must be rooted in the Bible. It's ridiculous!
Pacal's wager is absurd. If God exists, it won't be clueless enough to be fooled by a post-ape's transparent manipulations?
Yes, I've heard this argument plenty of times. I note, however, that your argument is not backed up by any evidence. Shame on you — demanding evidence from others but exonerating yourself.

Your argument is basically this: God will know you don't really believe in him. So, he'll give you zero reward for your efforts. What's the assumption? The assumption is that God saves people who believe. What backing does the atheist offer? Nothing at all. But, I give you Matthew 19:16-19, which I will paraphrase. A certain man comes to Jesus to ask what he should do to "have eternal life." Do you think Jesus said, "Just have faith in me?" Nope! He said, Keep the commandments. The man questions which ones? Jesus says, "Don't murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal. Don't bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor."

So, according to mainstream Christian theology, which you mischaracterize, belief is not required only obedience.
We gain impressions over the years. So often I have have seen examples of blatant stupidity, dishonesty and manipulativeness in many, many Christian claims over the years. And every time their dodgy claims are disproved, they NEVER admit being wrong! It's always just a quiet revision of claims so that the God of the Gaps remains possible.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I, too, have gained impressions over the years of the blatant stupidity of evidentialism. I have presented the argument here and offered you the chance to back up your claims with evidence. When are you going to start doing so? I mean, I know it's fun to get emotional and rail against Christians, but that affects me no more than a tirade against Buddhists would affect you.
Evolution is obviously real, so what anyone thinks of it doesn't matter. Evolution is indisputable in every possible way - with literal mountains of evidence for and absolutely zero evidence against.
I doubt that. Most arguments in favor of evolution usually break the basic rules of logic from the get go. Here's a sample argument in favor of evolution:

Atheist: Evolution is indisputable.
Zosimus: What exactly is evolution?
Atheist: Evolution is change! For example, if one animal is genetically defective, it will die without offspring. So, the genetic makeup of the population changes over time.
Zosimus: That makes sense. I believe that.
Atheist: Great! So, God doesn't exist! Life started without any supernatural intervention! We are descended from apes! Our closest cousins are chimpanzees, with whom we share an ancestor.
Zosimus: That's quite a leap! You went from 'the genetic makeup of a population changes over time' to all of that?
Atheist: You said you accepted evolution.
Zosimus: Sure, but you said evolution was just change.
Atheist: That was then. Now that you have accepted evolution, I'm changing the definition to mean dozens of other things that you don't believe in and for which I have no evidence! Sucker!!!!!
Evolution is basically the same process as biological development to maturity, albeit writ large, applying to the entire biosphere. Imagine life without evolution. It would be like being conceived and never changing, never growing from zygote to embryo to foetus to baby to child to teen to adult to dead meat.
Oops. Here we go down the road... I'm supposed to accept that evolution is just change and, in a few sentences or posts, you will violate the law of identity and evolution will mean something different. Am I right?
If a gods exists, evolution is its main tool. In fact, fundamentalist Christian denial of evolution is one of the best examples of the inherent naiveté of Abrahamic religions as compared with more thoroughly developed and more sophisticated far eastern counterparts, which pragmatically acknowledge natural dynamics. Fundamentalist Abrahamics, on the other hand, pretend that the phenomena don't exist to justify their literal reading of obviously metaphorical passages of the Bible.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... oh, I'm sorry. I nodded off. When are you going to stop railing against Christians and answer the question: What is the evidence for evidence?
Zosimus
Posts: 38
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Zosimus »

gad-fly wrote: June 19th, 2021, 7:26 pm The topic raised by me is Why did God create the universe. The idea is that God has created the universe, and on this premise, I am asking: why did he do it?

Without pondering on the question, many of you are more interested in the idea, but not the question, to my disappointment. Fine. I can understand.

I totally agree with your point that Evidence is required (or essential) to confirm or deny an idea. With moderation, I would say support or refute an idea. "Nothing ever showed up?" I am not so sure about that. Suffice to say that you have never personally experienced or read such showing up. Did Jesus not walk on water, and did he not make the blind see, as written on the Bible? No, you would say, because it is not true, or rather, it has not happened. You may be right. But if it did happen, the event including its outcome is evidence of God's existence, though not necessarily his creation.
Why did God create the universe? This presupposes first of all that God created the universe and second that he created it out of nothing. If God is a perfect being, then he lacks nothing and his only motivation can be to aid others. If, however, prior to his creating others ex nihilo, there were no others to help and, therefore, no others to help.

It's far more reasonable to believe that there were other beings... intelligences, as it were, whom God aimed to aid. God created a spiritual realm for them and places their intelligences inside spiritual bodies to give them greater opportunities. Lucifer et al rebelled against him, but this wasn't God's fault because God didn't create Lucifer, he just tried to help him.

Bam! Problem of evil solved. Explanation of why God created the universe solved. Sure, it flies in the face of standard Christian theology, but who cares about that?

As for evidence, this is more nonsense. According to the Bible, Moses was sent to Pharaoh and armed with miracles to "prove" to Pharaoh that Moses was legit. So, Moses threw down his staff and it became a snake. Yet, Pharaoh's advisers were able to do the same thing. So, what did the evidence prove? Certainly not enough to convince Pharaoh.

Fundamentally, the argument is this:

If you are legitimately sent from God, you should be able to do miracles.
You can do miracles.
So, you're legitimately sent from God.

This is a textbook example of the "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy. By this argument, couldn't Pharaoh's advisers have also legitimately claimed to have been sent by God?

Or when Jesus went back to his hometown, your scripture records (Mark 6:5) "...he could not perform any miracles there."

Since you have argued that evidence is essential to confirm or deny an idea, then weren't the people of his hometown fully justified in rejecting him?
Zosimus
Posts: 38
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Zosimus »

gad-fly wrote: June 20th, 2021, 10:53 am No. I do not pose silly question.

Evidence may be by written word, or by word of mouth. literary license is not necessary.

That Jesus has the ability to perform miracle shows more evidence than his ability, especially for the converted, though perhaps not on you. Say you have saved someone from drowning. Is that mere evidence of you being able to swim? Think outside the circle.
I'm sure you must realize that most people here do not consider written word or word of mouth evidence.

Nor is the argument "He saved a man from drowning so we can infer more from that than simply that he can swim" particularly persuasive.

Didn't Satan reportedly encourage Jesus to throw himself down from the top of the temple so that the angels could catch him on the way down? Wouldn't that have been an amazing miracle of the type that would have convinced many people? Yet, Jesus refused. Why would Jesus refuse to provide such convincing evidence? What say you?

Furthermore, if a man saves another from drowning, isn't it possible that the man arranged to put the other in danger for no other reason than to save him and thus show to others what a good job he had done?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Sy Borg »

Zosimus wrote: June 21st, 2021, 7:03 am
Sy Borg wrote: June 18th, 2021, 8:02 pmRequiring collateral is the same as requiring evidence, so you have proved my point. Why do you require evidence when it comes to small sums of money, yet you need no evidence at all to adopt beliefs that affect your entire life?
Requiring collateral is not the same as requiring evidence. I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be some amazing stuff. Puff, puff, pass, bro.
Evidence and collateral each function in lieu of trust. It's so obvious that I don't know why you are getting your panties in a knot about it, sista.

I tried to find something of substance in your post that was worthy of discussion.
Zosimus
Posts: 38
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Zosimus »

According to the dictionary, evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true..."

Since collateral is neither facts nor information, collateral is not evidence.

But, why is evidence important? Why the obsession with evidence, especially considering that there is no evidence for evidence? I have no idea, nor can you explain it. I suppose I am meant to take it on blind faith.

Very well. I will play along with your game just long enough to show how absurd it is.

1. "God exists" people say, but where is the evidence?
2. God exists is the same as saying if object O is God, then object O exists.
3. The corollary is: if object O does not exist, then object O is not God.
4. Harry Potter does not exist. Harry Potter is not God. This is evidence for statement 3.
5. Captain James T. Kirk does not exist. Captain James T. Kirk is not God. This is evidence for statement 3.
6. Bilbo Baggins does not exist. Bilbo Baggins is not God. This is evidence for statement 3.
7. Every piece of evidence for statement 3 is also evidence for statements 2 and 1.

Therefore, I have provided you with three pieces of evidence that God exists.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Sy Borg »

The "obsession" with evidence is that people lie and make mistakes all the time and are therefore not trustworthy.

Why should anyone accept questionable claims without any evidence?

The problem with your dialogue above is that Harry Potter actually exists. In fact, he lives in Essex these days, but travels to Glasgow to teach at Hogwarts. You have to believe me when I tell you this because, as you say, there is no need to back up one's claims with evidence.
Spinix
Posts: 9
Joined: May 23rd, 2021, 11:52 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Spinix »

There are different ways to view God, it depends how religious and spiritual you are. Religiously you would view him in the ways the scriptures that you read say. Spiritually you will see him as the essence of everything. You can view him as a perfect person or the universe itself.
The fact that most religions refer to God as a “he” is proof that men made him up as males were dominant in creating cultural beliefs for as long as history exists. If God were to have a gender I think it would be female because females give birth to both genders. Also I’ve heard that plants that are asexual are considered female.
I think the story of Adam and Eve was made to explain how life works in a simple story and shows how everyone is related in a way. All biblical stories were envisioned by spiritual people and since language is relative to humans, When those people wrote down their experiences, God was referred to have human form.
And to the question Why did God create the universe? I think she only created temporal things (like humans and atoms) out of an infinite supply of time, space, and energy.
She is just the mind of the universe and Time, space, and energy is the physical part of the universe.
Zosimus
Posts: 38
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Zosimus »

Sy Borg wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 8:46 pm The "obsession" with evidence is that people lie and make mistakes all the time and are therefore not trustworthy.

Why should anyone accept questionable claims without any evidence?

The problem with your dialogue above is that Harry Potter actually exists. In fact, he lives in Essex these days, but travels to Glasgow to teach at Hogwarts. You have to believe me when I tell you this because, as you say, there is no need to back up one's claims with evidence.
As always, you claim that others must submit evidence, but you submit no evidence of your own. I ask again: Where's the evidence for evidence? Because your entire argument seems to be "Evidence is required because it just makes sense to me." That's great — but it's not evidence.

You don't seem to realize the corner you have painted yourself into. If there is no evidence for evidence, then your worldview is incoherent and self-refuting. But, what if there is evidence out there — evidence that you haven't brought up because you don't know that it exists?

In that case, you could say "We know that evidence is required because the evidence says so." Fundamentally, this is no different from saying, "We know the Bible is required because the Bible says so." It's circular logic.

But, it's okay because there's an easy out for you. All you have to do is admit the truth, which is: "I, Sy Borg, reject logic."

Go ahead. Admit it. You'll find it quite liberating to finally confess what it is that you really believe.
Zosimus
Posts: 38
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Zosimus »

Spinix wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 10:13 pmThere are different ways to view God, it depends how religious and spiritual you are. Religiously you would view him in the ways the scriptures that you read say. Spiritually you will see him as the essence of everything. You can view him as a perfect person or the universe itself.
How one views God is irrelevant. Either God really does exist or not.
The fact that most religions refer to God as a “he” is proof that men made him up as males were dominant in creating cultural beliefs for as long as history exists.
This is a logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." You reason thus:

If men invented God, then God will be male. (G=>M)
God is male. (M)
So, men invented God. (Therefore, G).

This is a textbook example.
If God were to have a gender I think it would be female because females give birth to both genders. Also I’ve heard that plants that are asexual are considered female.
Gender is an arbitrary concept that applies only to words. The proper question is: Does God have a penis and, if so, what does he do with it? Does God need to pee? Does God get it on? Or, do you think that God has a uterus and squatted down one day, pushed mightily, and gave birth to the solar system?
I think the story of Adam and Eve was made to explain how life works in a simple story and shows how everyone is related in a way. All biblical stories were envisioned by spiritual people and since language is relative to humans, When those people wrote down their experiences, God was referred to have human form.
Speculation.
And to the question Why did God create the universe? I think she only created temporal things (like humans and atoms) out of an infinite supply of time, space, and energy. She is just the mind of the universe and Time, space, and energy is the physical part of the universe.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Sy Borg »

Zosimus wrote: June 23rd, 2021, 7:58 am
Sy Borg wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 8:46 pm The "obsession" with evidence is that people lie and make mistakes all the time and are therefore not trustworthy.

Why should anyone accept questionable claims without any evidence?

The problem with your dialogue above is that Harry Potter actually exists. In fact, he lives in Essex these days, but travels to Glasgow to teach at Hogwarts. You have to believe me when I tell you this because, as you say, there is no need to back up one's claims with evidence.
As always, you claim that others must submit evidence, but you submit no evidence of your own. I ask again: Where's the evidence for evidence? Because your entire argument seems to be "Evidence is required because it just makes sense to me." That's great — but it's not evidence.

You don't seem to realize the corner you have painted yourself into. If there is no evidence for evidence, then your worldview is incoherent and self-refuting. But, what if there is evidence out there — evidence that you haven't brought up because you don't know that it exists?

In that case, you could say "We know that evidence is required because the evidence says so." Fundamentally, this is no different from saying, "We know the Bible is required because the Bible says so." It's circular logic.

But, it's okay because there's an easy out for you. All you have to do is admit the truth, which is: "I, Sy Borg, reject logic."

Go ahead. Admit it. You'll find it quite liberating to finally confess what it is that you really believe.
You claim that I reject logic because I don't uncritically accept believe your unsubstantiated claims that evolution is not real. Do you think anyone else on the forum will believe you? Let's see ...

You need to convince people, not just make claims. Many researchers in the past have worked tirelessly to better understand the world and to pass that knowledge down, creating an awesome body of knowledge. I have no problem believing that scientists exist and that they unearth useful evidence about the nature of the world. Should I believe them? Or you?
Zosimus
Posts: 38
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Zosimus »

Sy Borg wrote: June 23rd, 2021, 8:15 am You claim that I reject logic because I don't uncritically accept believe your unsubstantiated claims that evolution is not real. Do you think anyone else on the forum will believe you? Let's see ...

You need to convince people, not just make claims. Many researchers in the past have worked tirelessly to better understand the world and to pass that knowledge down, creating an awesome body of knowledge. I have no problem believing that scientists exist and that they unearth useful evidence about the nature of the world. Should I believe them? Or you?
Ahh, here it comes. The straw man argument. Wow, you knocked that straw man down so well. Well done!

What is evolution? According to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/ it is "any change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next." Now, can you kindly link me to the post in which I said, "That's all nonsense! The frequency of alleles within a population stays rigidly constant from one generation to the next?"

Obviously, I never said that. What I said was that it's a big leap to say "the frequency of alleles within a population varies from one generation to the next THEREFORE, we share a common ancestor with a chimpanzee." Now, in case you aren't aware of when there is a jump in logic, I'll clue you in. When there are new, unexpected words in the conclusion — words not mentioned anywhere in the premises, that's a sure sign that something strange has happened. In this case, the words: common, ancestor, and chimpanzee are in the conclusion but not mentioned in the premise.

Now, I know must be uncomfortable for you to confront the point that there is no evidence for evidence and that, even if there were, you would still be begging the question. I can see how anxious you would be to change the subject to something... ANYTHING else. But, this is kind of a stretch, don't you think?
============================================================
Look — if you think you have a good argument for scientific realism, I'm willing to entertain it. Scientific realism is (usually) composed of 5 main assumptions.

SR1 Science aims to give a literally true account of the world.
SR2 To accept a theory is to believe it is (approximately) true.
SR3 There is a determinate mind-independent and language-independent world.
SR4 Theories are literally true (when they are) partly because their concepts “latch on to” or correspond to real properties (natural kinds, and the like) that causally underpin successful usage of the concepts.
SR5 The progress of science asymptotically converges on a true account.

Let's start by saying that I do not accept SR2 or SR5, and I am agnostic about SR4. Now, if you'd like to make some kind of argument for these things other than "Duh... you don't believe in evolution so you must be stupid..." then I'd be happy to hear you out.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Sy Borg »

Zosimus, you laid the bait by denying evolution and now you are switching. However, I don't need you to reiterate your claims with a sudden focus on alleles. Others cannot read your mind.
Sy Borg earlier on wrote: Evolution is obviously real, so what anyone thinks of it doesn't matter. Evolution is indisputable in every possible way - with literal mountains of evidence for and absolutely zero evidence against.
Zosimus wrote: I doubt that. Most arguments in favor of evolution usually break the basic rules of logic from the get go. Here's a sample argument in favor of evolution:

Atheist: Evolution is indisputable.
Zosimus: What exactly is evolution?
Atheist: Evolution is change! For example, if one animal is genetically defective, it will die without offspring. So, the genetic makeup of the population changes over time.
Zosimus: That makes sense. I believe that.
Atheist: Great! So, God doesn't exist! Life started without any supernatural intervention! We are descended from apes! Our closest cousins are chimpanzees, with whom we share an ancestor.
Zosimus: That's quite a leap! You went from 'the genetic makeup of a population changes over time' to all of that?
Atheist: You said you accepted evolution.
Zosimus: Sure, but you said evolution was just change.
Atheist: That was then. Now that you have accepted evolution, I'm changing the definition to mean dozens of other things that you don't believe in and for which I have no evidence! Sucker!!!!!
The above passage makes the spurious claim that evolution disproves the existence of God. Evolution has nothing to do with God - it's a theory of natural selection, not of religion.

Those who are interested in biology and evolution know well that it's not about humans descending from apes, because we are apes. Humans are hominids, great apes, along with chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

Obviously all of us apes had a common ancestor. DNA studies make clear that, ultimately, all known life on Earth appears to have an original common ancestor (LUCA). HUmans are only a few percent genetically different from chimps, and we share sixty percent of our genes with bananas. None of this means we are a type of chimp or a banana, but it points to commonalities between species.

Evolution is change that occurs over long time periods. Deep time is not intuitive, being vastly outside of anyone's personal experience. Thus, many people argue against it based on what they believe to be "commonsense" because they underestimate the vast scale of "millions" and, especially, "billions".

You have made some claims, but you resist any request to back up those claims. You assume that "God made the universe". Others here will question that assumption, although it seems that you find that to not be a politically correct approach.

Come on, you're the great believer. Convince this heathen. Put away your "clever" snappy comebacks and inaccurate assumptions about others. How about you share some real content with the forum rather than tit-for-tat noise?

WHY are you so certain that God made the universe?

HOW did you come to be convinced of this?

What do you think God is?

How do you think that God created the universe?

Do you think God is male? Do you think it is a spirit? Is it part of the universe, permeating throughout, or outside of it?

Does God have a personality like a human's, as described in the Bible?

Do you think that Heaven and Hell are locations or states of mind?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Sy Borg »

I'm out. Too many personal attacks.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7914
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by LuckyR »

Zosimus wrote: June 24th, 2021, 8:08 pm
AverageBozo wrote: June 24th, 2021, 10:15 amZ—

When you say, “God is a Jewish man born in 1 C.E. who was crucified in 33 C.E.”, you seem to be conflating God with Jesus of Nazareth. This does not answer what God is. This was either a tricky strategy or a mistake or something else other than an answer to the question asked.
Not a mistake. When I say God (capital G) I am not referring to Thor, Woden, or Allah. I am also not referring to YHWH or Huiracocha. God is a Jewish man who is believed to have fathered himself by not having sex with a virgin, thus becoming his own father. This may seem strange to you. Well, it seems strange to me that you guys think that light is both a wave and a particle and that objects at rest contain a special, invisible, undetectable energy that cannot be measured by any device but that nevertheless exists, an energy that cannot be converted into any form other than motion whereas all other forms of energy are quite happy to be converted into heat. To paraphrase Feynman, what strikes you as absurd depends heavily on your point of view.
When you say that evolution is change, you have selected a secondary meaning of the word. Evolution is change and much more, so that means that no one has switched the meaning except you. Think of it as evolution (change) and Evolution (change that leads to the development of new species, change that comes from natural selection, and not just any kind of change).
Negative. What is evolution? It's a simple question that Google is happy to answer for me. Number 1 result, from Wikipedia, "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." You will note that neither development nor species is mentioned. Are you claiming that when a bacterium develops antibiotic resistance that this is not evolution because no new species is produced? That's a new one on me! Supposedly antibiotic resistance is proof positive that evolution occurs!

Number 2 result: "In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations..." This definition, you will note, specifically denies that evolution creates new species. Apparently, evolution only creates new characteristics within an existing species.

Number 3 result: Some YouTube video. Tl;dw.

Number 4 result: Evolution (Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy) "typically refers to the changes in the proportions of biological types in a population over time." Neither species nor development is mentioned.

Number 5 result: Biology online.com -- "Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations."

Number 6 result: Princeton University -- "Evolution refers to change through time as species become modified and diverge to produce multiple descendant species." FINALLY! I had to read through 6 definitions to come up with your definition.

Are you sure that your definition is the real definition?
When you say:

1. We aim to show that God exists.
2. God exists means "For all x, if x is God, then x exists."
3. The corollary is "For all x, if x does not exist, then x is not God."
4. Harry Potter does not exist. Harry Potter is not God. So, there is evidence for 3.

you are only saying that if x exists, then x is God or x is not God. Again, either a trick or a mistake.
No, but I'm not surprised you missed the reference. It's Hempel's Ravens Paradox in which Hempel argues that finding a green apple is evidence that all ravens are black. His logic goes as follows:

1. We aim to show that all ravens are black.
2. All ravens are black is the same as: if x is a raven, x is black.
3. Corollary: If x is not black then x is not a raven.
4. We find a green apple.
5. A green apple is not black and not a raven.
6. Theory confirmed.
7. Conclusion: Green apples are evidence for the claim "All ravens are black."

Silly? No. Seemingly paradoxical? Most definitely — paradoxes are intended to seem paradoxical!!

So, what's the solution to the paradox? Well, if you watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_dbh6RbdCM at time index 8:02 the lecturer offers his solution, which is: Abandon the idea that evidence confirms a theory. I concur. Presumably, however, you do not concur. Well, what's your solution?

Or does it surprise you that I want to discuss philosophy on a philosophy forum?
Huh?

What does evolution have to do with gods?
"As usual... it depends."
Zosimus
Posts: 38
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm

Re: Why did God create the universe?

Post by Zosimus »

LuckyR wrote: June 25th, 2021, 3:30 amHuh?

What does evolution have to do with gods?
Exactly nothing. That's the point. A change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to another has nothing to do with "gods" whatsoever.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021