Doubting your disbelief?

[Taffer]

We are limited by dint of light speed by that which we can observe in the universe - ie the "observable universe." This is not all there is - nor is it fixed [it is currently growing larger as light from further galaxies finally reaches us - it may start shrinking in the distant future].

So surely the universe is all that is and not all that which can be observed?

I would say that the effective size of the universe is the size of one's lightcone. Anything outside of which cannot affect you without breaking the speed of light.

 

[Gertrude]

Atheism relates specifically to the concepts of god. I am a 'weak atheist', that is "I do not have a belief in God", rather then a 'strong atheist', "I have a belief in no God". The difference is subtle and important.

Agnosticms deals with the ability to gain knowledge. Depending on your definition of "God", I am either a 'strong agnostic', that is "It is impossible to have knowledge about God", or a 'weak agnostic', which is "We do not have knowledge of the existance of God".

As an aside, my epistemic philosophy is what I like to call "complete epistemic skepticism". It boils down to "it is impossible to have certain a posteriori knowledge about anything, including this statement". The beauty is that science does not claim to give certain knowledge, only reasonable knowledge or "practical knowledge".

And I don't disbelieve, I lack a belief. This is not a belief into itself. The answer to the OP is "no", because I have never seen any evidence to doubt my lack of belief. If there is evidence, I will doubt my lack of belief (by forming a null hypothesis), and then test the evidence against this hypothesis. So far, there is no evidence at all, so my lack of belief is safe.

Ah! Yes. Absolutely! I thought you believed that no god existed. My bad. Thanks for clarifying!

Actually, I could not agree more! Except of course, the fact that I believe god (whatever that means) to be, by definition, unprovable. If he is transcendant to us, to our experiences and senses, then by definition, we cannot prove it by those means...

 

[PixyMisa]

We are limited by dint of light speed by that which we can observe in the universe - ie the "observable universe." This is not all there is - nor is it fixed [it is currently growing larger as light from further galaxies finally reaches us - it may start shrinking in the distant future].

So surely the universe is all that is and not all that which can be observed?

A good question, and Taffer has beaten me to a good answer.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ah! Yes. Absolutely! I thought you believed that no god existed. My bad. Thanks for clarifying!

I do believe that, in the same way that I believe that there are no fairies, unicorns, elves, mermaids, dragons etc etc; in the same way that I believe this chair will hold my weight: Inductively.

 

[Gertrude]

I do believe that, in the same way that I believe that there are no fairies, unicorns, elves, mermaids, dragons etc etc; in the same way that I believe this chair will hold my weight: Inductively.

But tell me, why are you so certain that the presence of a transcendant being (god) would produce evidence that you could see and understand? Is that not a blind belief in the human machine and its capacities? And especially if that being is transcendant! Our own senses and perceptions emerged for our survival. Their main job is not and was never to understand the universe. It is very possible that there exists a reality that we will never gain knowledge of, simply because of our own limitations. In this sense, I see strong atheism as a belief, just like theism.

 

[PixyMisa]

But tell me, why are you so certain that the presence of a transcendant being (god) would produce evidence that you could see and understand?

Does said being affect the material universe?

If so, then that change can be detected; whether it is understood is another question entirely, but it would be an event that ran counter to one or more laws of physics. There is no room in the Standard Model for transcendent beings.

Is that not a blind belief in the human machine and its capacities?

No. Just the assumptions of metaphysical naturalism, and the definition of existence that comes from that. And I hold to metaphysical naturalism because it is the basis for science, and science (as I said earlier) works.

And especially if that being is transcendant!

Transcendence is utterly irrelevant.

Either it effects change in our universe, or it does not.

If it does, it can be detected, and measured, and compared with the laws of physics - which would then be (at best) relegated to useful rules of thumb.

If it does not, then it does not exist.

Our own senses and perceptions emerged for our survival. Their main job is not and was never to understand the universe. It is very possible that there exists a reality that we will never gain knowledge of, simply because of our own limitations.

If that reality does not effect our universe, then it does not exist. And if it does, it is rather part of our reality, can be measured and explained.

In this sense, I see strong atheism as a belief, just like theism.

Yes and no.

Strong atheism is not supportable by deductive logic. My atheism, though, is a hypothesis, perhaps a theory, supported by inductive logic.

Against a god of positive claims, my theory can be tested. If you say "If you blaspheme against God, you will be struck down.", then I simply have to make a few slurs about his mother and watch for thunderbolts.

There are, of course, few such gods about today.

Basically, my atheism is this: I don't believe in gods in general, and I disbelieve in all gods invented by Man, because they're silly.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'll just add again that my position is founded upon metaphysical naturalism. If that is false, then everything I just said is wrong, and a whole lot else besides. But we have no reason to think that is the case.

 

[Gertrude]

Does said being affect the material universe?

If so, then that change can be detected; whether it is understood is another question entirely, but it would be an event that ran counter to one or more laws of physics. There is no room in the Standard Model for transcendent beings.

No. Just the assumptions of metaphysical naturalism, and the definition of existence that comes from that. And I hold to metaphysical naturalism because it is the basis for science, and science (as I said earlier) works.

Transcendence is utterly irrelevant.

Either it effects change in our universe, or it does not.

If it does, it can be detected, and measured, and compared with the laws of physics - which would then be (at best) relegated to useful rules of thumb.

If it does not, then it does not exist.

If that reality does not effect our universe, then it does not exist. And if it does, it is rather part of our reality, can be measured and explained.

Assume that god is simply the 'will' of the universe. He did not 'create' anything nor does he have direct measurable impact on material beings. If he is such 'coordonator', how can we measure the effects of his 'will' and, more importantly, distinguish them from a universe where said god did not exist? You cannot deny, however, that he does have an impact... just not a measurable one.

The assumption of science is that we can trust our senses and our logic to describe the universe. If you accept this assumption, you accept science as true. But it is still a form of belief! What leads you to think that you can grasp, or even see, everything in the material world? The human eye, for instance, is only sensible to the visible part of the E&M spectrum. We have managed, with technology, to detect more. But what makes you think that this is all there is? Science allows us to predict and describle phenomenas. It does NOT disprove the existence of [insert phenomena]. There is certainly much to be discovered and we must admit that it is possible that some of it may not be perceptible to us in its very nature. Furthermore, if god is transcendant, he does exist but may not be provable. Existence is not defined only within what we call the material world, ie. that part of the world that we have knowledge of.

Yes and no.

Strong atheism is not supportable by deductive logic. My atheism, though, is a hypothesis, perhaps a theory, supported by inductive logic.

Instead of saying that your atheism is a "hypothesis", why don't you say it is a belief?

Against a god of positive claims, my theory can be tested. If you say "If you blaspheme against God, you will be struck down.", then I simply have to make a few slurs about his mother and watch for thunderbolts.

There are, of course, few such gods about today.

Agreed.

Basically, my atheism is this: I don't believe in gods in general, and I disbelieve in all gods invented by Man, because they're silly.

This is very different from what you claimed earlier. As Taffer pointed out, there is a huge difference between 'believing that no god exists' (a belief in itself) and 'not believing in god' (lack of belief).

 

[PixyMisa]

Assume that god is simply the 'will' of the universe. He did not 'create' anything nor does he have direct measurable impact on material beings. If he is such 'coordonator', how can we measure the effects of his 'will' and, more importantly, distinguish them from a universe where said god did not exist? You cannot deny, however, that he does have an impact... just not a measurable one.

To exist is to effect change on one's environment. If god doesn't do anything, then in no sense can he be said to exist.

The assumption of science is that we can trust our senses and our logic to describe the universe.

No. The assumption of science is that the universe is what is, and that it follows a consistent set of rules. Our senses are a representation of that universe, and a flawed one; science allows for that. Our logic - not logic itself, but the logic that we achieve as human researchers - is likewise flawed. Science allows for that too.

If you accept this assumption, you accept science as true.

What?

Science is not something that can be true. It's a method for finding out how the universe behaves. It can be useful; indeed, it is very useful. But it's not true.

But it is still a form of belief!

The assumptions of metaphysical naturalism are axioms; they cannot be deduced from anything more fundamental. Metaphysical naturalism is thus a form of belief (albeit potentially a falsifiable one).

Science itself is not a form of belief. It is a methodology built on the foundation of naturalism and applied to the universe.

What leads you to think that you can grasp, or even see, everything in the material world? The human eye, for instance, is only sensible to the visible part of the E&M spectrum. We have managed, with technology, to detect more. But what makes you think that this is all there is?

First, there is very good theoretical reason to believe that the four known forces - electromagnetism, gravity, weak, and nuclear - are all there is. What's more, at sufficiently high energies, all four forces are thought to be the same. There is a successful Electroweak theory that provides a unified description of the electromagnetic and weak forces, for example.

In other words, everything interacts with everything else. If something does not interact, it can not be meaningfully said to exist. If it does, it can be measured.

Science allows us to predict and describle phenomenas. It does NOT disprove the existence of [insert phenomena]. There is certainly much to be discovered and we must admit that it is possible that some of it may not be perceptible to us in its very nature. Furthermore, if god is transcendant, he does exist but may not be provable. Existence is not defined only within what we call the material world, ie. that part of the world that we have knowledge of.

You're missing the point.

If your transcendent being does not interact with our universe, saying that it exists at all is meaningless. It exists no more than Gandalf does, or Spider-man.

Instead of saying that your atheism is a "hypothesis", why don't you say it is a belief?

Because a hypothesis is tentative, predictive and falsifiable. You can generate and test hypotheses even if you don't believe in them at all.

This is very different from what you claimed earlier. As Taffer pointed out, there is a huge difference between 'believing that no god exists' (a belief in itself) and 'not believing in god' (lack of belief).

Not so different as all that. Name any god that people have ever believed in, and I believe that it was invented from whole cloth by superstitious primitives.

 

[Gertrude]

To exist is to effect change on one's environment. If god doesn't do anything, then in no sense can he be said to exist.

I DID say that god had an impact. Just not a quantitatively measurable one. You define existence with respect to yourself: "if I can't see it and can't measure it, then it does not exist". WRONG! It can very well exist and be impossible to detect, as the example I gave: 'will'.

No. The assumption of science is that the universe is what is, and that it follows a consistent set of rules. Our senses are a representation of that universe, and a flawed one; science allows for that. Our logic - not logic itself, but the logic that we achieve as human researchers - is likewise flawed. Science allows for that too.

Assumptions of physics: 1) A mathematical description is a valid representation of the word. Since mathematics is a form of logic, we can put it that way: we can trust our rationality. 2) Experimentation is a valid procedure to gain knowledge. Or: we can trust our senses. These are the basic axioms. If science is based on them, in what way does it coherently allow them to be wrong?

What?

Science is not something that can be true. It's a method for finding out how the universe behaves. It can be useful; indeed, it is very useful. But it's not true.

Of course it can be true! There is the possibility that it's not. But there is also certainly the possibility that all the axioms are completely valid and that we one day develop a theory that is true. If you believe in the axioms, you allow for this possibility and in this sense, hold science as true or potentially true.

The assumptions of metaphysical naturalism are axioms; they cannot be deduced from anything more fundamental. Metaphysical naturalism is thus a form of belief (albeit potentially a falsifiable one).

Absolutely.

Science itself is not a form of belief. It is a methodology built on the foundation of naturalism and applied to the universe.

A methodology based on a certain belief remains a belief if you admit that it can potentially be true (see above).

First, there is very good theoretical reason to believe that the four known forces - electromagnetism, gravity, weak, and nuclear - are all there is. What's more, at sufficiently high energies, all four forces are thought to be the same. There is a successful Electroweak theory that provides a unified description of the electromagnetic and weak forces, for example.

Of course...

In other words, everything interacts with everything else. If something does not interact, it can not be meaningfully said to exist. If it does, it can be measured.

You're missing the point.

If your transcendent being does not interact with our universe, saying that it exists at all is meaningless. It exists no more than Gandalf does, or Spider-man.

It DOES interact. But we must allow for he possibility that we, mere humans, don't and can't have the knowledge of it.

Because a hypothesis is tentative, predictive and falsifiable. You can generate and test hypotheses even if you don't believe in them at all.

Sure. But that's very far from your atheism. What you are saying is that atheism is a hypothesis that you don't necessarly believe in. Just call yourself an agnostic, then.

Not so different as all that.

A world of difference. To believe there is no god is a belief. To not believe in god is a lack of belief. I believe that X does not exist is a positive affirmation backed up by x and x arguments. To not believe in X can mean: "I don't know", "I don't care", "I'm not asking myself this question" and so on.

Name any god that people have ever believed in, and I believe that it was invented from whole cloth by superstitious primitives.

Agreed.

 

[PixyMisa]

I DID say that god had an impact. Just not a quantitatively measurable one. You define existence with respect to yourself: "if I can't see it and can't measure it, then it does not exist". WRONG! It can very well exist and be impossible to detect, as the example I gave: 'will'.

No. I have no special standing. I define existence with respect to the universe. The universe is what is. If something does not interact with the universe, it does not exist.

And "will" is a biochemical process; perfectly detectable, if incompletely understood.

Assumptions of physics: 1) A mathematical description is a valid representation of the word. Since mathematics is a form of logic, we can put it that way: we can trust our rationality.

No. Science proceeds even though individual scientists are irrational. The universe is consistent, not us.

2) Experimentation is a valid procedure to gain knowledge. Or: we can trust our senses.

No. We know our senses are flawed. Science proceeds regardless.

These are the basic axioms.

No they're not.

If science is based on them

Which it isn't.

in what way does it coherently allow them to be wrong?

Independent verification. The whole point of science is that theories are predictive. Once you have a theory, you can put it to practical use. It works, or it doesn't. Quantum mechanics works, or this computer would be an expensive lump of aluminium and sand. Relativity works, or GPS would be persistently and noticeably out of whack.

Of course it can be true! There is the possibility that it's not.

No. Science cannot be true, any more than a angle-grinder can be true. Science is a tool.

But there is also certainly the possibility that all the axioms are completely valid and that we one day develop a theory that is true. If you believe in the axioms, you allow for this possibility and in this sense, hold science as true or potentially true.

No. If the axioms are correct, you cannot ever prove a theory to be true. You can only know that it has not yet been proven false.

A methodology based on a certain belief remains a belief if you admit that it can potentially be true (see above).

No. It's a tool. Tools are not true or false.

It DOES interact.

If it interacts, then it can be measured.

But we must allow for he possibility that we, mere humans, don't and can't have the knowledge of it.

Hogwash. If something interacts with the universe, it can be measured. We can observe the behaviour of individual subatomic particles; no smaller interaction is possible.

Sure. But that's very far from your atheism. What you are saying is that atheism is a hypothesis that you don't necessarly believe in. Just call yourself an agnostic, then.

No. Atheism is a hypothesis that I do believe in. I could be wrong, but that seems extremely unlikely.

Science works. The axioms of science preclude transcendent beings. That in itself is sufficient reason to believe that they do not exist. Not conclusive, of course. But sufficient.

 

[andyandy]

Hogwash. If something interacts with the universe, it can be measured. We can observe the behaviour of individual subatomic particles; no smaller interaction is possible.

By "it can be measured" do you mean that humans have the capability to measure it? I don't think you can make such a strong claim. It is perfectly possible that an interaction be inherently immeasureable, and rather likely that human capability will always be deficient. For example, gravitons might be unbounded within our own spatial framework, leaking out into miniscule curled up dimensions - but we can't measure that theory at the moment. People are trying - measuring on smaller and smaller distances to see if the inverse square law is violated - but the distances likely required are well beyond current capabilities. It's possible we will be able to one day, but perhaps we won't ever know. Human capabilities for measurement shouldn't be used as a substitue for that which actually exists - tempting though that may be

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Creating "something novel" out of what already exist is not creation! What you are describing is a 'ruler', not a creator. A being who consciously organises matter, ie. create something novel out of what is already there, is not a creator. And, again, a god-'ruler' is another matter: determinism. If there already is something before that god re-organises everything, then we have not addressed the question of creation.

This is a matter of semantics. Most definitions of the words "Creator" or "Creation" don't mean necessarily making 'something out of nothing' or else the words wouldn't even exist since such a thing is not possible (at least for us mortals).

1. the human act of creating
2. an artifact that has been brought into existence by someone
3. the event that occurred at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure"
4. the act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creation

If you say there is nothing, what you really are saying is: there is no [insert object that you have knowledge of].

Not necessarily. If I say there is "nothing" then I am saying there is no [insert object of anything and everything].

To have nothing, you must have something in the first place... because nothing is the very absence of that something. Imho you cannot stretch that concept back to the very origin of all existence. The word, I think, is only useful in our day to day wordings.

So 200 years ago there weren't no cars because at the time there were no cars existing to base our saying there are 'no cars' on? This is purely a matter of semantics again. The fact that we humans need something to use in relation of nothing to identify it as nothing really isn't relevant.

When saying: "if nothing exist", you use a very human concept to make a point that it cannot be humanly defined. Is that not a contradiction?

It can be defined pretty well. "Nothing"-Lacking all things.

You can say that in retrospection because you now have knowledge of these objects. Again, you show that 'nothing' is only valid when 'something' exists.

Non sequitur. I can say it in retrospect, this is true. However whether it's said or not it's still true. 13 billion years ago there were "No planets or galaxies". This was true 13 billion years ago that there were no planets or galaxies and it's true now that 13 billion years ago there were planets or galaxies. My stating it is irrelevant. They didn't exist.

Furthermore, I must point out that the material needed to create these object existed. In a way, they did exist, but as raw material. The comparison is not valid when extented to creation.

The objects as defined didn't exist. Planets and galaxies are defined in a specific way and raw material existing that formed them doesn't mean planets or galaxies existed. A car isn't a car until it's raw materials are put together into something that is defined as a car.

Moreover, Who's to say that the 'raw materials' needed to make the universe didn't already exist before God came along? He just formed them together into our universe making him by definition it's 'creator' as clarified above.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Science works because empiricism is the only valid method for understanding the universe. We like science because it works; that is pragmatism.

Do we use science because it works or 'like' science because it works? Do we(as you assert) assume that the universe is casually closed because it 'works' or for another reason?

I just explained that, Dustin.

Science is inductive. If the universe is not causally closed, inductive reasoning fails.

Most science is deductive not inductive. That's what empiricism is based on. Induction is coming to a conclusion based on a set number facts that are known to be true. Deduction is coming gathering novel information to come to a conclusion. This is the backbone of the scientific method.

Me.

Well you've convinced me.

No, absolutely not. Science uses observation and induction. That only works if you have a causally closed universe that follows a consistent set of rules.

"Casually closed universe" and "Follows consistent set of rules" are two different things. A casually closed universe means our universe has a cause in and of itself opposed to outside of itself. This wouldn't negate the fact of consistent laws of physics.

Moreover, What about all of that stuff about wormholes leading to alternative universes, The Ekpyrotic scenario of the origin of the universe, The Multiverse. All of that is nonsense, right? Can never be confirmed with science? Worthless?

If you make those assumptions, you find that they work very well indeed; in fact, we have never yet seen them fail, though they have led us in unexpected directions.

The laws of this universe are still being discovered each day by physicists. We don't have some set "laws of the universe" that must always be followed and never fail. When physicists make new discoveries especially on the breaking edges of physics they frequently find older laws of physics to be obsolete and newer laws in need of articulation.

Actually study QM and you'll find that you are wrong. Particularly once you grasp the meaning of the term "observe" in science.

Tell me how Quantum Mechanics doesn't have events for which there is no known cause.

If there are things that truly cannot be observed affecting things that can be, then the universe is not causally closed, induction fails, and science doesn't work. Since we know that science does work, this would appear not to be the case.

Ever hear of quantum fuzziness? Quantum fluctuations? Actio in distans?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Indeed, there is no way to distinguish between a universe that is not causally closed and a universe that doesn't follow a consistent set of rules. But either way, inductive logic, and hence science, fail.

How is a universe not being casually closed and the universe not following a consistent set of rules synonymous?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, Dustin. There is no "before" the Big Bang. The question is meaningless.

I said no such thing. You said that "Everything which is explainable is naturalistically explainable." I said This is the no Scotsman fallacy. If you're assuming that nothing can be explained using non-naturalistic means then you're forced to come to the conclusion that all things which currently can be explained (using naturalistic philosophy) must be explained using naturalistic philosophy.

I know you don't. What would convince you of the existance of God?

I'm the one asking the questions here!

You choose which things to believe in based on the consequences of such a belief being true?

I didn't say that. It was a question.

 

[Gertrude]

And "will" is a biochemical process; perfectly detectable, if incompletely understood.

Then explain the detectable difference between a world ruled by the will of a god and a godless world.

No. Science proceeds even though individual scientists are irrational. The universe is consistent, not us.

You contradict yourself. You say that science cannot be true for it is merely a human tool that 'works' and then claim that science is transcendant to these humans and by being consistent with the universe.

No. We know our senses are flawed. Science proceeds regardless.

Again, pretending that science transcends humans. How do we make observations that validate theories? With our flawed senses maybe?

Independent verification. The whole point of science is that theories are predictive. Once you have a theory, you can put it to practical use. It works, or it doesn't. Quantum mechanics works, or this computer would be an expensive lump of aluminium and sand. Relativity works, or GPS would be persistently and noticeably out of whack.

Independant? Independant of what? Of whom? Humans make these verifications. In independant settings. But not independantly for our perception.

No. Science cannot be true, any more than a angle-grinder can be true. Science is a tool.

It could be true. What proves, without a doubt, that it cannot possibly be?

No. If the axioms are correct, you cannot ever prove a theory to be true. You can only know that it has not yet been proven false.

Sure you'll never prove it. But independantly of this, it could very well be true.

Proove X => X is true
X is true =/> X can be proven

No. It's a tool. Tools are not true or false.

Many scientists would disagree on the idea that it is merely a tool. Science is a way of knowledge.

No. Atheism is a hypothesis that I do believe in. I could be wrong, but that seems extremely unlikely.

Good! So you do admit that it is a belief.

Science works. The axioms of science preclude transcendent beings.

Yes.

That in itself is sufficient reason to believe that they do not exist. Not conclusive, of course. But sufficient.

Only if you hold science as true. Which you already said it could not be... contradiction?

 

[Gertrude]

By "it can be measured" do you mean that humans have the capability to measure it? I don't think you can make such a strong claim. It is perfectly possible that an interaction be inherently immeasureable, and rather likely that human capability will always be deficient. For example, gravitons might be unbounded within our own spatial framework, leaking out into miniscule curled up dimensions - but we can't measure that theory at the moment. People are trying - measuring on smaller and smaller distances to see if the inverse square law is violated - but the distances likely required are well beyond current capabilities. It's possible we will be able to one day, but perhaps we won't ever know. Human capabilities for measurement shouldn't be used as a substitue for that which actually exists - tempting though that may be

Exactly.

 

[Gertrude]

This is a matter of semantics. Most definitions of the words "Creator" or "Creation" don't mean necessarily making 'something out of nothing' or else the words wouldn't even exist since such a thing is not possible (at least for us mortals).

Yes, all definitions of creator imply this. If not, they are synonym of 'ruler' or simply 'transcendant being', which is another discussion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creation

Didn't they teach you in Philo101 that dictionaries are not a good reference for definitions of philosophical matters? Especially online dictionaries.

Not necessarily. If I say there is "nothing" then I am saying there is no [insert object of anything and everything].

To insert something, you must know that something. Even if all you know about it is its existence. But the object must exist, even in your own thoughts, before you can talk of its existence. By talking about "anything and everything", you mentally include all objects that exist. To know that they exist (whatever they are) is still a knowlegde of them.

It can be defined pretty well. "Nothing"-Lacking all things.

I tried... I really honestly tried to explain my point. A comment such as this after all these posts leaves me on the floor, completely desperate.

Non sequitur. I can say it in retrospect, this is true. However whether it's said or not it's still true. 13 billion years ago there were "No planets or galaxies". This was true 13 billion years ago that there were no planets or galaxies and it's true now that 13 billion years ago there were planets or galaxies. My stating it is irrelevant. They didn't exist.

If they never, ever existed, you could not say that they do not exist because you would have no knowledge of them. You could imagine something, name it "a galaxy" and say it does not exist. But just by imagining and defining, you would have knowledge of it.

The objects as defined didn't exist. Planets and galaxies are defined in a specific way and raw material existing that formed them doesn't mean planets or galaxies existed. A car isn't a car until it's raw materials are put together into something that is defined as a car.

Right. But 'creation' implies creating the raw materials themselves. If not, than I am equal to god! Hey, I do create stuff out of raw materials, after all!

Moreover, Who's to say that the 'raw materials' needed to make the universe didn't already exist before God came along? He just formed them together into our universe making him by definition it's 'creator' as clarified above.

I specifically addressed this question in the very first paragraph of that post. If the material existed, god is no longer a creator, but merely a 'ruler'.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, all definitions of creator imply this. If not, they are synonym of 'ruler' or simply 'transcendant being', which is another discussion.

See dictionary definitions.

Didn't they teach you in Philo101 that dictionaries are not a good reference for definitions of philosophical matters? Especially online dictionaries.

No.

Firstly, Dictionaries are the most reliable sources for definitions of words. The definitions of words rely on common usage and it's the dictionaries job to update frequently as common usage changes. Most definitions of the word "create" as dictated by common usage in the English vernacular don't mean "form from nothing". If this were the case then the sentence "I created a work of art!" would be meaningless as would any use of the word "create" in relation to anything that is known of. The word "create" would be meaningless.

Secondly, Online dictionaries (including dictionary.com) get their information from reputable dictionaries who publish books generally. Often Webster or Oxford.

To insert something, you must know that something. Even if all you know about it is its existence. But the object must exist, even in your own thoughts, before you can talk of its existence. By talking about "anything and everything", you mentally include all objects that exist. To know that they exist (whatever they are) is still a knowlegde of them.

Things didn't exist before humans could say they didn't exist.

I tried... I really honestly tried to explain my point. A comment such as this after all these posts leaves me on the floor, completely desperate.

The problem is, your point isn't valid.

If they never, ever existed, you could not say that they do not exist because you would have no knowledge of them.

So?

You could imagine something, name it "a galaxy" and say it does not exist. But just by imagining and defining, you would have knowledge of it.

How is this addressing my point exactly? You're claiming that things can't not exist unless humans can say they don't exist in relation to something that does exist. This is false, Galaxies didn't exist before humans could claim they didn't exist. Humans not being able to claim they didn't exist didn't negate their non-existence.

Right. But 'creation' implies creating the raw materials themselves.

No it doesn't. Not in the English language it doesn't.

If not, than I am equal to god! Hey, I do create stuff out of raw materials, after all!

Except the definition of God is creating the entire universe. So no, You aren't equal to God.

I specifically addressed this question in the very first paragraph of that post. If the material existed, god is no longer a creator, but merely a 'ruler'.

Except by definition that's false. "Creation" doesn't imply making things from nothing or else the word would be meaningless.