@metallica04100 That would require the theist to confess that their deity has not the power to make the same Creation come about without continued conscious intervention, even though the pandeistic Creator explicitly has such power. And, note, the Creator discerned by Pandeism does not wholly cease to intervene; it becomes, and so ceases to consciously intervene (though it continues to unconsciously sustain all things within itself).
@metallica04100 There are a few more recent vids on this channel, 'How Powerful Is Your Creator' and 'Pandeism Fully Accounts' which delve deeper into these points especially.
"...That leads back to a first cause, which itself is uncaused."
This is where any kind of religion just completely fails. You can make up as many story facets as you want in your fairy tale, but eventually you accept that something has always just existed. Why does this have to be some 'supreme being'? Why can't it just be the universe itself?
@Vurandal01 There's this little thing called the Hubble red shift, which shows our Universe expanding; expansion traceable back to a singular point of initiation some 13.72 billion years ago.... the question is what existed before that singular point -- whatever it was, it wasn't our Universe as we know it.
@PanDeism Why does it have to be a being that created it, though? Why does the solution have to be humanized solely for the purpose of being able to be comprehended by people?
@Vurandal01 It has not been "human"-ized -- it has simply been assigned such capacities as would be necessary to execute a rationally operating Creation at all.... sufficient power to create, sufficient intellect to design, and a rational motive to engage in the rational exercise of such power and intellect.... any other characteristics assigned to such Creator are unevidenced, under this argument....
@Vurandal01 ....and, I must add as well, there's precious little about such a Creator which could be comprehended by people; the gloss on the Creation, all the myths in the scriptural texts, that is what is man's attempt to comprehend what it rightly cannot....
Rules within the universe do not necessarily apply outside of it. Even so, virtual particales wink in and out of existence without any apparent cause at all. So the premise is not only unsupported, it's false.
@kshackleton Is this a kneejerk reaction to the phrase "cosmological argument?" Did you actually watch the vid? It is NOT presenting the argument as some sort of binding proof of a Creator, but is simply illustrating that IF the argument proves anything at all, it can prove ONLY the pandeistic model, and not any theistic model -- and so it is primarily a vid in opposition to theism....
But since you've brought it up.... whence arises the capacity of particles to "wink in and out of existence"?
I did watch the video. The argument proves nothing because the premise of causality is untrue, at least at the quantum level. We have no idea what "causes" virtual particles to pop in and out.
@kshackleton Well as I explained, the video is aimed more foresquarely at debunking the theistic takeoff of the Cosmological Argument than at proving the argument valid. IF it is valid then it is valid as to Deism or Pandeism, not as to Theism.
And as to what causes particles to pop in and out of being, it's not that we have "no idea" -- we have many ideas, one being a Creator.... what is lacking is evidence of the specific mechanism in motion.
I would agree that if the argument is valid, then it can only go as far as Deism.
Thanks for clarifying, when I say that we have no idea, what I mean by that is that any guess is as good as any other....and just as likely to be incorrect and we would expect any guess to be.
@Phyle9 Identify for me one thing which you have ever observed to occur without cause, without basis in the previous exercises of our fundamental Universal forces.... now, we know our Universe has proceeded from expansion from a singularity, the Big Bang; and as Stephen Hawking has taught us mathematically, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".... which leaves only the question, who set down that law?
@Phyle9 So you are a time traveler? You actually observed the origin of our Universe, of life and of consciousness? You have observed all of these things coming from nothing? Or you just guess they did, and call this guess an observation?
@Phyle9 I have a theory the Sun will rise in the morning; it's never a 100% certainty that it will, but we are able to rationally assign levels of probability to hypotheses and theories.... And so we may determine from our observation of the routine of sunrises that the next is probable, and that it is equally probable that daily sunrises occurred before anyone was here to watch them....
@Phyle9 The amazing thing is that with enough information we can predict what the Sun will do in 20 trillion centuries (or at what point it will cease to exist, and whence will go its components) based on the consistent nature of our Universe acting in accordance with its laws -- laws which include the order of things arising from other things....
But our laws of physics do exist, so the first cause must immediately come to conform to the laws of the Universe as the laws come into existence -- and it is important not to confuse the specific arrangement of forces in our Universe to laws that must be true no matter what laws of physics are in place; for example that the area of a square on a flat plane is greater than the area of a circle on that same plane that fits entirely within that square....
It is not possible to apply the known laws to the question of the first cause since whatever it was intelligent or not it exists outside of our laws. the domino exists in this universe and is subject to its laws.We can not compare the first cause to a domino.
Question: Couldn't the theist say that continued intervention is necessary for the best possible creation?
metallica04100 1 week ago in playlist Pandeism vs Theism
@metallica04100 That would require the theist to confess that their deity has not the power to make the same Creation come about without continued conscious intervention, even though the pandeistic Creator explicitly has such power. And, note, the Creator discerned by Pandeism does not wholly cease to intervene; it becomes, and so ceases to consciously intervene (though it continues to unconsciously sustain all things within itself).
PanDeism 1 week ago
@PanDeism ah ok
metallica04100 1 week ago
@metallica04100 There are a few more recent vids on this channel, 'How Powerful Is Your Creator' and 'Pandeism Fully Accounts' which delve deeper into these points especially.
PanDeism 1 week ago
"...That leads back to a first cause, which itself is uncaused."
This is where any kind of religion just completely fails. You can make up as many story facets as you want in your fairy tale, but eventually you accept that something has always just existed. Why does this have to be some 'supreme being'? Why can't it just be the universe itself?
Vurandal01 1 year ago
@Vurandal01 There's this little thing called the Hubble red shift, which shows our Universe expanding; expansion traceable back to a singular point of initiation some 13.72 billion years ago.... the question is what existed before that singular point -- whatever it was, it wasn't our Universe as we know it.
PanDeism 1 year ago
@PanDeism Why does it have to be a being that created it, though? Why does the solution have to be humanized solely for the purpose of being able to be comprehended by people?
Vurandal01 1 year ago
@Vurandal01 It has not been "human"-ized -- it has simply been assigned such capacities as would be necessary to execute a rationally operating Creation at all.... sufficient power to create, sufficient intellect to design, and a rational motive to engage in the rational exercise of such power and intellect.... any other characteristics assigned to such Creator are unevidenced, under this argument....
PanDeism 1 year ago
@Vurandal01 ....and, I must add as well, there's precious little about such a Creator which could be comprehended by people; the gloss on the Creation, all the myths in the scriptural texts, that is what is man's attempt to comprehend what it rightly cannot....
PanDeism 1 year ago
The argument fails utterly.
Rules within the universe do not necessarily apply outside of it. Even so, virtual particales wink in and out of existence without any apparent cause at all. So the premise is not only unsupported, it's false.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton Is this a kneejerk reaction to the phrase "cosmological argument?" Did you actually watch the vid? It is NOT presenting the argument as some sort of binding proof of a Creator, but is simply illustrating that IF the argument proves anything at all, it can prove ONLY the pandeistic model, and not any theistic model -- and so it is primarily a vid in opposition to theism....
But since you've brought it up.... whence arises the capacity of particles to "wink in and out of existence"?
PanDeism 1 year ago
@PanDeism
I did watch the video. The argument proves nothing because the premise of causality is untrue, at least at the quantum level. We have no idea what "causes" virtual particles to pop in and out.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton Well as I explained, the video is aimed more foresquarely at debunking the theistic takeoff of the Cosmological Argument than at proving the argument valid. IF it is valid then it is valid as to Deism or Pandeism, not as to Theism.
And as to what causes particles to pop in and out of being, it's not that we have "no idea" -- we have many ideas, one being a Creator.... what is lacking is evidence of the specific mechanism in motion.
PanDeism 1 year ago
@PanDeism
I would agree that if the argument is valid, then it can only go as far as Deism.
Thanks for clarifying, when I say that we have no idea, what I mean by that is that any guess is as good as any other....and just as likely to be incorrect and we would expect any guess to be.
kshackleton 1 year ago
what if there is no first cause or what if the universe itself is the first cause, its not like a first cause must be intelligent
sodron72 1 year ago
@sodron72 Must be? no, but surely it may be, and the rational organisation of our Universe surely weighs towards such....
PanDeism 1 year ago
@sodron72 I agree. The cause&effect theory is just so shortminded (aka human mind)
Why would there be some "cause" to whatever there is?
It just IS.
And always was. And always will be.
No creator is needed for that.
Why would there be nothing in the first place anyway?
It's not like there had to be nothing before there was something.
Phyle9 1 year ago
@Phyle9 Identify for me one thing which you have ever observed to occur without cause, without basis in the previous exercises of our fundamental Universal forces.... now, we know our Universe has proceeded from expansion from a singularity, the Big Bang; and as Stephen Hawking has taught us mathematically, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".... which leaves only the question, who set down that law?
PanDeism 1 year ago
@PanDeism
To identify for you that 1 thing that I have ever observed, which has no cause:
The Universe, Life, Energy, Consciousness, ...
just to name a few
Phyle9 1 year ago
@Phyle9 So you are a time traveler? You actually observed the origin of our Universe, of life and of consciousness? You have observed all of these things coming from nothing? Or you just guess they did, and call this guess an observation?
PanDeism 1 year ago
@PanDeism It was indeed a guess, just like every theory, hypothesis or religion.
Phyle9 1 year ago
@Phyle9 I have a theory the Sun will rise in the morning; it's never a 100% certainty that it will, but we are able to rationally assign levels of probability to hypotheses and theories.... And so we may determine from our observation of the routine of sunrises that the next is probable, and that it is equally probable that daily sunrises occurred before anyone was here to watch them....
PanDeism 1 year ago
@PanDeism Interesting theory about the sun... But will it hold the test of Time?
What about in 20 thrillion centuries? Will it still rise, as you observed?
My guess is it won't...
Phyle9 1 year ago
@Phyle9 The amazing thing is that with enough information we can predict what the Sun will do in 20 trillion centuries (or at what point it will cease to exist, and whence will go its components) based on the consistent nature of our Universe acting in accordance with its laws -- laws which include the order of things arising from other things....
PanDeism 1 year ago
Nothing was created or destroyed - only changed from one form to another.
Your laws (causes) fail on the subatomic level.
No GOD.
hybridamerica 2 years ago
But our laws of physics do exist, so the first cause must immediately come to conform to the laws of the Universe as the laws come into existence -- and it is important not to confuse the specific arrangement of forces in our Universe to laws that must be true no matter what laws of physics are in place; for example that the area of a square on a flat plane is greater than the area of a circle on that same plane that fits entirely within that square....
PanDeism 2 years ago
It is not possible to apply the known laws to the question of the first cause since whatever it was intelligent or not it exists outside of our laws. the domino exists in this universe and is subject to its laws.We can not compare the first cause to a domino.
pestmanpat 2 years ago