"I appreciate that you have now given it some thought, mjpb.

The "flimsy" part was that you had based your sequence of logic on an untested thought. Now you are starting to address it...

None of what I pointed out, by the way, is in any way intended to establish the non-existence of a supreme being...they would themselves "just be", would they not?"

Thank you for explaining that. I'm happy to think about things.

"Otherwise you would have to come up with a theory on the creation of God...might be a touch trickier than determining the physical beginnings of our particular universe."

They'd need to just be and it would be pretty tricky if they weren't. I'm not sure about the trickiness ranking but you did say "might" and I am not keen to exceed the word count for a post so I'll explain further if requested.

>>The evidence available is that natural systems have causes.<<

"Except, of course, for a "first" one. But this should not be surprising, as we do not have the ability yet to test anything that does not have a cause - i.e., all science is directed to finding a cause, but only in an environment where there is one to be found.

So I think you might now be able to see why I suggested ..."

Could original cause and just being be different things?

Your science comment is correct and it ties in with the programming. The Christian society had a concept of God as rational and normally working with rules and causes and effects. This has passed on as a presumption which you could call a programmed brain. However it worked with science. Could you consider that to be evidence supporting the hypothesis?

">>But there is no evidence that natural systems can be eternal.<<

Where would you look for such evidence?"

I understand the challenge and hope that you see what I am saying.

"...any "inference" is purely metaphorical. Anything to do with thermodynamics ... mathematical equations.

No metaphors allowed."

My point to ponder for the day.

If I'm reading this correctly, mjpb...

>>They [supreme beings?] [would] need to just be and it would be pretty tricky if they weren't.<<

...you believe that God just "is", then created the universe.

The key to your belief, as I understand you to say, is that it is not possible for both God and the universe simple to "be".

Put another way, it is essential to your belief system that the universe was, at some point, created. And, of course, created by God.

(Personally I'd be inclined to ask "why?", at this point. But we might usefully leave that for another occasion.)

>>Could original cause and just being be different things?<<

Most definitely. I'm not sure what could lead you to the view that they are the same. "Original cause" indicates an action that "causes" something to occur. "Just being" indicates an existing state, and does not need a cause.

>>The Christian society had a concept of God as rational and normally working with rules and causes and effects. This has passed on as a presumption which you could call a programmed brain.<<

This is worth some further thought.

The concept of "God as rational and normally working with rules and causes and effects" is in itself a construct of the human brain. There is after all no overriding reason why God should operate in this fashion, except that our ability to conceptualize is limited to our own mental capacity.

Consider it this way. It is impossible for us to contemplate a God that does not act in a recognizably human (or animal) way. This has been true for all Gods that have been worshipped over the millennia - Greek, Roman, Egyptian, the lot.

So, rather than our programmed brain being a "presumption", it is the only possible way that it can be.

Even atheists, when contemplating the rationale behind their lack of belief, can only think of Gods in the form that other - religious - humans have already defined. We spend remarkably little time trying to figure out what other forms they may take, before rejecting those too.

Pericles,

Sorry about the delay. Real life has a habit of side tracking things.

You seem to have a radical idea about the causal nature of things and what has been held out as divine revelation you apparently write off as necessary programming. What do you say about the apparently impulsive God of Islam who seems to just do whatever they want? There is a uniqueness about the JudeoChristian God that led to the birthing of modern science based on expectations that the rational patterns were there to be discovered. We necessarily focus on the human-like qualities of God but the rational nature goes beyond that (and are humans completely rational anyway?)

I'm not saying that what you are saying is unreasonable but just that it might no encapsulate everything.

"Consider it this way. It is impossible for us to contemplate a God that does not act in a recognizably human (or animal) way. This has been true for all Gods that have been worshipped over the millennia - Greek, Roman, Egyptian, the lot."

But strangely we are able to conceptualise that a God could be more than that and have attributes that are mysterious to our intellect even if we can't conceptualise what that would be like.

"Even atheists, when contemplating the rationale behind their lack of belief, can only think of Gods in the form that other - religious - humans have already defined. We spend remarkably little time trying to figure out what other forms they may take, before rejecting those too."

Given your handle, revisiting the ideas of Greek Philosophers and their unnamed God might get atheists started.

Can I just clarify some things.

1. Do you disagree with the first premise that I used being that something has a cause?

2. Can you explain to me why the laws of thermodynamics can't be used to establish that the existence of usable energy in the universe indicates that matter and energy haven't been around forever. Isn't that just applying the law to the facts not using a metaphor? I don't understand.

No need to apologize, mjpb.

>>Pericles, Sorry about the delay. Real life has a habit of side tracking things.<<

But I think we are no nearer to understanding the differences that clearly exist in the way in which we view the universe.

>>What do you say about the apparently impulsive God of Islam who seems to just do whatever they want?<<

Who are "they" in this sentence? I can only assume that you mean the adherents of this particular religion, since the God in the sentence is singular.

If that is your question, I can only point to an earlier reply of mine that describes the acts of gods as being consistent with the nature of the humans who conceived them. So the quick answer to your question would be in the form of another question, "how else would they act? They are only the product of the human imagination, after all".

>>There is a uniqueness about the JudeoChristian God that led to the birthing of modern science based on expectations that the rational patterns were there to be discovered.<<

Not so unique, really. Think Plato, and the Theory of Forms.

>>...strangely we are able to conceptualise that a God could be more than that and have attributes that are mysterious to our intellect even if we can't conceptualise what that would be like<<

That could almost pass for a one-sentence definition of every God ever invented. We humans have always recognized that we haven't the faintest notion "why" we are here. This causes us intellectual problems. So we set out to create in our minds the concept of someone/thing that does know. By definition, therefore, they will need "attributes that are mysterious to our intellect".

>>revisiting the ideas of Greek Philosophers and their unnamed God might get atheists started<<

I somehow doubt that. With the luxury of hindsight, it would seem that the Greeks "Unknown God" was a singularly honest expression of the contemplation of the unknown that I just described. In my view, it was rather naughty of Paul to claim that he, alone, had the answer.

TBC...

To your questions, mjpb.

>>Do you disagree with the first premise that I used being that something has a cause?<<

Which "something" did you have in mind? Of course "some things" have a discernible cause.

But if you mean "do I agree that everything has a cause", I would have to say no, not necessarily.

For example, if everything has a cause, your God would need one also. Which leaves you with the problem to wrestle with, "what caused God?"

But if you accept as I do that it is possible for some things (including God, should one exist) just to "be", then you must also accept that it is possible for the universe itself just to "be".

Does that make sense?

>>Can you explain to me why the laws of thermodynamics can't be used to establish that the existence of usable energy in the universe indicates that matter and energy haven't been around forever<<

No, personally I can't.

I do believe however that there are a number of people who believe themselves capable to square that particular circle.

But given that the laws of thermodynamics are - relative to the universe itself - quite young, I suspect we will know more in a few years time.

Have a great day.

There’s one point I’d add to this:

“But if you accept as I do that it is possible for some things (including God, should one exist) just to "be", then you must also accept that it is possible for the universe itself just to "be".”

And that is that nothing physical has ever been shown to be anything other than a new arrangement of pre-existing parts.

This is why the ‘first cause’ argument falls down at its premise; we don’t know that these pre-existing parts ever “began to exist” (as William Lane Craig would put it) at all.

It’s interesting to think, mjpb, that had you properly understood what Pericles and myself have explained over the last couple of months in regards to this “evidence”, or just bothered to check the validity of the points you're presenting when they were apparently first presented to you, you’d have understood that absolutely no at all faith was required for you to remain an atheist, just a little common sense.

How different things could have been for you.

What I find odd here though is how, as an atheist, you so readily, willingly and unquestioningly accepted that which only an already pre-conditioned believer would accept.

Something really doesn’t add up here. That’s for sure!