Why the “I Just Believe in One Less God than You” Argument Does not Work

Michael,

Your example illustrates the problem for Christians who claim to KNOW such things as the Trinity. Your chair example does not work. In this example, you use science and the Hypothetico-Deductive method, because your trust that the chair will hold you up is based on previous evidence. Your past experience warrants that claim. Faith, however, is belief WITHOUT evidence.

The Christian philosopher,” Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could be rationally proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans. It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us. “(wiki)

Experience does not count as evidence, as Hindus, and Muslims, etc, all have religious “experiences” If the experience argument worked, then Brahman must also be true!

What Paul said “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”–is nonsensical.

Also, if you believe arguments from WL Craig and other apologists amount to evidence, you would be mistaken. Their arguments are based on arguments that were refuted many years ago, and their recasting of these arguments are no better.

On my blog, (aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com) I provide critiques of these arguments.

Cathy,

Using Kierkegaard to define faith is like using Barth to define Trinity. His view is going to be far outside the mainstream, bordering on (though not quite) unorthodoxy. Fideism is not the mainstream Christian view.

Faith is belief according to the evidence, not against the evidence. Read Isa 40-48 to see blind faith condemned by God. The chair example is a wonderful way of looking at faith. The reformers had three components that went into saving faith:

Notitia: knowledge
Assensus: intellectual assent or conviction (based on evidence)
Fiducia: trust

The last one is the one that you are trying to say is faith.

To assert that WL Craig’s evidence is refuted is merely an assertion that carries no value. It would be like me saying, “Atheism’s arguments have been refuted many years ago,” and then simply point you to a site. In reality, your overstatement should be toned down to this “In my opinion, their arguments are based on arguments that have been refuted.

Cathy,
CMP said most of what I wanted to say above, I did want to comment on this statement though.

“Experience does not count as evidence”

I think it is important to define experience because by a very generic definition science relies largely on experience. It is with our experential senses that we conduct scientific experimentation. So you might want to say something like this instead, “subjective emotional experiences do not count as evidence.”

I would agree that a subjective emotional experience would not be convincing evidence for another person. However, I disagree, in that I believe such an experience, in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, would provide the individual having the experience with warrant for believing what they believe. Thus the “internal witness of the Holy Spirit” provides sufficient warrant for someone who experiences this to believe, but would not be sufficient for someone who hasn’t had this experience to believe.

C Michael Patton

The definition I gave for faith is not Kierkegaard’s–it is the definition of the word itself. Faith, by definition is belief without evidence.

Faith is only good if it is faith in the right thing after all. To put it bluntly, scientists do have “faith” in their theories, but those theories must be tested and confirmed before their “faith” becomes “knowledge.”

What evidence do you have that has been tested and confirmed for the existence of the Christian God, that the Christian god is the only god, or that Jesus existed as a son of God–or that Jesus is God?

My arguments against Craig are not by mere assertion, as my counter arguments to Craig’s arguments show that Craig’s arguments fail. Evaluate them for yourself.

Michael T

The experience argument works for every religion. Interestingly, Hindus have experience with their gods, Christians with Jesus, and Muslims with Allah and so on.

What they experience is related to their own beliefs, and no one’s experience with their particular god is any more valid than the experience of others with their particular god.

Cathy,

Your definition is A definition of faith, but not the Christian definition. Isaiah 40-48 demonstrate conclusively that the God of the Bible is no fan of blind faith. Luke says that Christ appeared by “many convincing proofs.” Your definition is simply Fideism. Again, there are three elemements to Christian faith: notitia, assensus, fiducia. If you are going to argue agaist Christianity, it would help if you knew how Christians thought about such an important and central concept. It has a long tradition.

Your statement is assertion plus a link. I could make the same statement: “Atheism has been conclusively debunked. See http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog.” I don’t expect you to read all through it even though I do think that I demonstrate that atheism is the most intellectually bankrupt worldview there is. However, assertions don’t do much. And this blog post is not about proving or disproving theism. It is about the invalidity of the cliche used by many atheists

Cathy,

1. You can’t force a definition of faith upon a group of people who have never had that understanding of the word. This is a textbook case of creating a strawman. For its entire history the mainstream of the Christian Church has rejected the definition you are giving. It is simply not what we mean when we use the word “faith.” As such your arguments are of little relevance on this matter.

2. Two people who believe contradictory things can both be warranted in their belief even if they both can’t be correct. We see this all the time, whether it be political issues, economic theories, or even competing scientific theories (see the different theories on quantum mechanics for instance). Two people can believe completely contradictory things (for instance in order to get out of a recession is it better for the government to spend money or give tax cuts) and both have good reasons for believing what they believe. Warrant is not the same as being right.

3. As to your supposed refutations of WLC and others you can point me to your blog (which I looked at briefly and failed to see any novel objections) and I can point you to 20 others which address your objections (not to your satisfaction of course) and then you can point me to 20 others that respond to those (not to my satisfaction of course) and we can go on ad nauseum for days. Of course all this goes way beyond authors point with this post which was simply that the existence and evidence for any god must be evaluated independently of another god. Now perhaps the ultimate reason for rejecting the god is the same (e.g. not enough evidence), but the evaluations must be independent.

C Michael Patton

I am willing to accept your definition of faith, which is:

” Faith is belief according to the evidence, not against the evidence.”

Now, what “evidence” can you present that would show that the Christian god or any other gods or goddesses exists?
What evidence do you have to show that the Christian god is the only god? What evidence do you have of the Trinity? What eveidence do you have that heaven and hell exist? What eveidence do you have the people will be resurrected?

My definition of knowledge is “true, justified belief” and this is based on evidence. Now, what is your definition of knowledge? Provide it and I will work with it.

I am willing to accept argument by experience as evidence. Therefore, if I accept your experience as evidence to be fair, I also accept the Hindu experiences as evidence for Brahman, Vishnu and Krishna. I accept the Muslim experiences as evidence for Allah, and so on and so on–and the writings in their holy…

Michael T

Either people counter the arguments, or they do not. People can agree to disagree, but this is neither here nor there in regards to the validity and soundness of an argument. Now, as you seem to suggest, most people do not judge arguments based on their merit, but by their emotional response to it–which is why people will believe things without any evidence.

The fact that you are not specific in addressing my arguments, is a sign that you judge arguments primarily based on whether they agree with your position or not–and not on their merit. So, if you care to address one of my arguments, then I will pay attention to what you have to say. Otherwise, your mere assertions do not bother me…:)

The shotgun of questions are all very good and worthy of discussion. But, again, the subject of this post is very limited to the invalidity of the cliche.

If you would like to see all the arguments in favor of theism and against atheism that I make, mingle through the atheism category on this blog.

You might start here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/03/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-the-only-six-options/.

This shows how irrational atheism is from the perspective of ontology. I merely point you there if you are serious about learning. But this thread is not for that discussion.

Cathy,

“Either people counter the arguments, or they do not.”

Who decides whether or not a argument has been sufficiently countered?

C Michael Patton

Your arguments in the post offer no new revelations. If you read my post, and the comments and the replies, a viable explanation for the universe is “in its own nature” In the comment section of this post, I dealt with some of the issues discussed in your link.

I will say more on this as I have been working on a post which provides support for the existence of the universe being “in its own nature” which addresses the objections raised in your post.

Your mere assertion that, “This shows how irrational atheism is from the perspective of ontology.” is just another case of, to paraphrase, “As to your supposed refutations which I looked at briefly and failed to see any novel objections and I can point you to 20 others which address your objections (not to your satisfaction of course) and then you can point me to 20 others that respond to those…” but here I will not stoop to your low standards and judge arguments based solely on whether they agree…

Michael T

To answer that, I recommend you take and Intro to Logic and some classes in Philosophy. If you have already done this, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the process.

Sometimes, people will just have to agree to disagree.

Cathy,

I understand the process and I have taken logic. I was simply making clear what you just admitted. Namely that people can disagree about whether a conclusion follows from the premises or the premises are valid, or if there are hidden premises, and so on.

As to saying “see my blog.” I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but in a comment/forum type setting this is generally considered bad form. If you have a argument make it and then if you really feel the need say something like “see http://www._____” for more information and sources. Simply posting websites or blog posts is actually quite impolite and a lot of people like myself simply won’t pay attention to those who insist on this type of behavior.

From “Sean Osborne” #19

“Theists believe in invisible supernatural entities. Atheists don’t. While it is true that the reason I don’t believe in God is the same as the reason you don’t believe in Zeus, that doesn’t make you an atheist. It merely makes you illogical and inconsistent”

I don’t think Atheists have an answer or explanation of everything (…please if you are able to fully elucidate where thought, love or even gravity come from, please enlighten me). So, what seems illogical and inconsistent, is to prematurely eliminate a possible explanation of things that are or appear to be supernatural.

Scientific method would require that we pursue every avenue of explanation and go where the evidence leads us.

By eliminating a possible explanation, or presuming a cause in advance, of natural phenomena, you have unfairly biased yourself against something that may end up being the truth.

Strangely enough, that also demonstrates a type of faith…

“I don’t think Atheists have an answer or explanation of everything (…please if you are able to fully elucidate where thought, love or even gravity come from, please enlighten me). So, what seems illogical and inconsistent, is to prematurely eliminate a possible explanation of things that are or appear to be supernatural.”

Do we require doctors to have a cure for every disease before admitting that disease is probably not caused by your neighbor giving you the ‘evil eye’? No.

“Scientific method would require that we pursue every avenue of explanation and go where the evidence leads us.”

Precisely. *Where the evidence leads us.* The evidence for any one religion is no better than that for any other. So if we examine all of the claims and honestly do our best to develop competing hypotheses that could provide alternative, more likely, explanations for that evidence then it leads you down a path where the claims of religion appear increasingly tenuous and without merit.

Please take a breather for a moment. There is a distinction between discussion and two groups talking past each other or genuine argument and meaningless polemic.
If I am interested in dialog with you, I can’t just refuse to meet your argument with comment that denies a responsible answer is even vaguely required. Otherwise my comments are self-promoting, not about discussion.
In fact, there are two ways to approach the argument. Let G= God is and let -G= God is not. The argument G may not be provable scientifically, but the argument -(-G) is testable – that is the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that natural process within the cosmos is insufficient to explain what we find.
A solution for this may be of two kinds: open and closed. In the open case, solutions such as a multiverse may be used; in the closed case, not.
If it can be demonstrated that only the closed solution is possible, one then must be willing to go back and parse different belief systems.

“that is the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that natural process within the cosmos is insufficient to explain what we find.”

Huh? Says who? Just because we don’t yet have natural explanations for every last detail doesn’t mean there are not natural explanations to be discovered.

Imagine if, in the 1600s, we adopted your point-of-view with regard to medicine. “It’s clear that we don’t have natural explanations for why people get sick. So clearly we must consider supernatural explanations as just as likely and worth pursuing”.

Nick, I’ve never liked that particular apologetic either.

As you rightly point out, it leaves the evidence for God in a constant state of shrinking as human beings make more and more advances in knowledge. It becomes a sort of “God-of-the-Gaps” theory, where once you understand something, it’s not longer valid evidence for God.

As a believer in deity, I think that is a very dangerous trend, and it’s one of the main reasons I reject the Intelligent Design movement.

I consider God to be just as present in phenomena we think we understand, as in phenomena we do not understand. I consider theology, properly understood, to be the inquiry about the biggest picture possible for a human – our place in the overall universe, and our meaning in it. I consider science to be a discipline falling under theology, not an alternative, or opposing force to it.

Nick,

My argument is in regards to “theists believing in ‘supernatural invisibile beings'” and how, or if, those things may or may not be explained by natural phenomena.

‘Science’ cannot currently explain the origin or substance of every phenomena that we can observe (e.g. ‘thought’).

The possibilities are 1) We ‘can’ explain everything we observe or 2) We ‘cannot’ explain everything we observe.

At this point in our history, we ‘cannot’ explain everthing. Therefore the possibility of things that are unexplainable or supernatural is still valid–at least until ‘everything’ is explained.

If you presume that man can and someday will be able to explain ‘everything’, then you believe (or have faith) that man is capable of, and will attain, infinite knowledge.

I infer from what you say that we don’t have to have complete knowledge before we ‘probably’ can know what is true or not true. Well, that may be the case in some instances, but it is not science

…but it is not science.

Michael T.,

Many classicists think it possible that the Socratic dialogues are not verbatim transcripts. In fact, they consider it entirely possible that Plato occasionally put his own words and ideas in Socrates mouth and that it may be impossible to determine whether specific words or ideas originated with Socrates or Plato. Such scholars are not deemed to hold an anti-Socratic agenda nor are they deemed to harbor anti-philosophy presuppositions.

On the other hand, when a scholar suggests that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John reflect the author’s understanding rather than Jesus’, he is likely to be accused of trying to destroy Christianity. Moreover, Christians believe that an incorrect conclusion on the question may lead a loving and benevolent God to subject him to eternal torture.

Secular scholars apply the same standards to the Bible as other ancient writings. Christians don’t.

Nick and Seth:

You both seem to have missed the point. I was merely stating that the proposition -(-G) is defined as scientifically testable and if true, then the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that natural process within the cosmos is insufficient to explain what we find. No analysis was intended or offered. I was merely stating that one cannot choose either open or closed models because it satisfies ones predilections. In actuality, considerable data has been available some time, but to go there is to hijack Michael’s blog, which I have no intention of doing. Rather, I am reacting to the view in this discussion that science must uphold a point of view, for the scientific enterprise exists to collect and interpret data. It is not a theistic or atheistic enterprise: to make it so subverts it. When the Soviets decided that there was socialist and capitalist science, they fell down a three decade long rabbit hole.

By the way, just to satisfy my curiosity, how many of you have practical experience in the physical, biologic or cosmological sciences? Some of you seem a little naive about the scientific enterprise in its actual practice. Perhaps, its just a misapprehension on my part.

“t this point in our history, we ‘cannot’ explain everthing. Therefore the possibility of things that are unexplainable or supernatural is still valid–at least until ‘everything’ is explained.”

Damon,
We need to distinguish between “possible” and “probable”. To your point above, yes, it is possible that the supernatural explains things that are as yet unexplainable. It’s also possible that another explanation is that we’re living in a computer simulation and the “super-beings” who programmed the simulation are they themselves living in simulation. Recurse on that a few times.

Both are possible, but one is more probable. Hint: see http://www.simulation-argument.com/

“You both seem to have missed the point. I was merely stating that the proposition -(-G) is defined as scientifically testable and if true, then the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that natural process within the cosmos is insufficient to explain what we find.”

How are you arriving at this? In what way is it scientifically testable? And how is ‘-(-G)’ different from G?

“you seem a little naive about the scientific enterprise in its actual practice.”

How so?

No one “explains” thing in the proper sense. They just describe them. Even the simplest phenomenon can’t be explained if understanding is in question. Used, manipulated and described but not explained.

Nick:

The proposition G is God exists. The proposition -G is God does not exist. The proposition -(-G) is that the non-existence of God is insufficient to explain that which is scientifically determined. Science is a method and is not determined to decided for or against atheism. Ultimately it is a question of whether there is sufficient mass/energy and time to achieve what we see in the cosmos without intelligent input. It is because the current results are so discouraging to the atheistic hypothesis that we have three mulitverse(or megaverse) theories, one of which maybe in jeopardy and Dawkins’ favorite – an expanding and contracting universe – which fails according to recent analysis from Europe ( there is a transfer of entropy from each previous expansion so that after ~200 expansions and contractions the entropy is so high that protons, neutrons and electrons cannot exist).

Nick,

I was speaking of what is possible and how discarding a possibility before it is tested would bias one to erroneous results. What is possible and what is probable are two entirely different concepts.

What is probable is a wholly different topic. Probability is what is ‘most likely to happen’–but that does not mean that it will–and it surely will not happen in all cases by definition.

Is it ‘possible’ that God exists versus the idea that no God exists? Yes, it is possible that God exists–because man at this point does not have infinite knowledge.

If you wish to discuss probability in terms of the main point of this post, I suppose you would have to then ask, is it more probable that God exists verus the idea that no God exists.

In that regard, is it ‘probable’ that ‘something’ came from ‘nothing’? With our current base of knowledge, the idea that ‘something’ comes from ‘nothing’ is highly improbable based on certain know physical laws.

“The proposition G is God exists. The proposition -G is God does not exist. The proposition -(-G) is that the non-existence of God is insufficient to explain that which is scientifically determined.”

You’re smuggling a lot of assumptions into -(-G).

If G = God exists and -G = God does not exist, then -(-G) = God does not, not exist, which is a double negative and resolves to God exists.

“Ultimately it is a question of whether there is sufficient mass/energy and time to achieve what we see in the cosmos without intelligent input.”

What’s to say there needs to be intelligent input? History is littered with examples of humans presuming there must be some “higher power” just over the horizon, and repeatedly that’s turned out to not be the case. What’s different?

But for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s so; that there must be intelligent input. What makes us think it has to take the form of a God? Why couldn’t it be something akin to what Bostrom posits in…

“If you wish to discuss probability in terms of the main point of this post, I suppose you would have to then ask, is it more probable that God exists verus the idea that no God exists.
In that regard, is it ‘probable’ that ‘something’ came from ‘nothing’? With our current base of knowledge, the idea that ‘something’ comes from ‘nothing’ is highly improbable based on certain know physical laws.”

Damon,
Your logic is faulty. Simply admitting that it’s not probable that a god exists does not imply that something comes from nothing. It may be that our level of understanding of time, matter and energy is akin to what we understood about disease when Christ was roaming the Earth (i.e. almost nothing).

Similarly it’s more likely that, as a matter of probability, our current explanations of our origins, including our religious explanations, are wrong.

Nick:

Smuggling nothing: if the limitations of the cosmos are
4 insufficient (note: if), then there has to be an alternate solution. You ignore that I spoke to alternate explanations.
But we are left with either a theistic solution – or a pantheistic solution – or a megaverse solution.
Megaverse solutions assume an infinite number of universes and that anything is possible if you have an infinite number of universes makes anything possible.
This is not necessarily so. Do you know who Georg Cantor was? If not, I have to do a whole lot more explaining.

P.S. : I have been trying to set up an argument in the way a scientist would go about it. You seem hostile to what I am doing. I have not suggested that I have presented any evidence one way or the other. Have you ever had to set up an argument in a formal way? Anyone who is trying to set up a framework for reasonable discussion has to do what I have been trying to do, theist, atheist, agnostic, whatever.

istic

Sorry, its late. I forgot to edit.

Errata: 4 in first sentence is a typo. “of universes makes anything possible” is redundant and confusing. In the postscript there should be a colon between “do” and “theist” for clarity.

No hostility at all. What I’m taking issue with is your making bold assumptions and unnecessarily closing off alternative hypotheses by limiting the choices to (or perhaps *leading the argument to*) a narrow discussion of multiverses. You write as though there’s settled science w/r/t multiverses, however I’ve not seen it. Can you point us to some?

I know who Cantor is but I’m not a student of mathematics beyond what I learned in college on the way to a degree in music. Thus, the relevance of his work to this discussion, beyond having to do with ideas of infinity, is lost on me.

But we shouldn’t need to resort to arcane mathematical theories to discuss whether there are good reasons to believe one or more gods exist.

Nick:
What other possibilities are there?
1. Either the universe is sufficient to explain itself or it is not.
2. If it is not, then its existence must be explained by other means.
3. Either that explanation requires an intelligent source or it does not.
4. If it does not, de rigeur, a probabilistic solution is required. There are no other choices, in view of the collapse of the expanding and collapsing universe hypothesis (generally rejected by astrophysicists long before the recent nail in its coffin).

Your objections are not to any “assumptions” I am making but to my attempt to make a testable framework. That is what we who have worked in the sciences do. Ultimately, we are doing is in my bailiwick. And in science the answers are often found by attention to “arcane mathematics.” To take mathematics off the table, is to reduce the issue to what one finds in so many of these fora: “I’m smarter than you and I say there is no god.” “No, you’re not.” “Yes, I am.”…

Nick,

I may have skipped a step in fully connected the thougths in the previous post, but you still have the question of “did ‘something’ come from ‘nothing’? And by ‘nothing’, I mean ‘absolutely nothing, or non-being’.

If ‘something’ came from nothing, what proof do you offer?

I something does not come from nothing, then ‘something’ comes from ‘something’–i.e. a ‘causal agent’.

If the universe was ’caused’ to exist, then what was that cause.

I am saying it is improbable that the universe came from nothing.

When you then begin to determine ‘what’ or ‘who’ caused the universe, you cannot rule out the possibility (I do not say probability) that it is an infinitely powerful entity that exists outside of our time/space.

That infinitely powerful entity could be God.

Don:
Let’s fast-forward a second: Do you believe there exists a supernatural presence who created everything in existence, who takes a personal interest in your affairs, answers your prayers and cares specifically and especially about you and every other person on this planet?

I ask this not to dodge your question but to perform a sanity check on our discussion.

Thanks,
n

“..you cannot rule out the possibility (I do not say probability) that it is an infinitely powerful entity that exists outside of our time/space.That infinitely powerful entity could be God.”

Damon,
If you’re going to make a list of things it *could* be (i.e. the possible, not the probable) then you have to include the other options as well. e.g. it could be a supernatural entity who is especially cruel and enjoys watching how many ways people can invent to both harm and help each other. Perhaps our existence is simply a game he invented where he set two forces opposite each other and the game is to see how it all plays out.

Other possibilities include:
-we’re a computer simulation
-we’re a chemical experiment
-we’re a game being played by super-intelligent entities on a vastly larger timescale
-none of this is ‘real’; it’s a collective dream.
-we’re the content of the dreams of a house pet in an extra-universe.

I could go on for hours. None have more or less…

Nick:

Sanity check? I have a friend whose brother was once considered a candidate for a Nobel Prize. In his personal life: paranoid schizophrenic, dissociative. Atheist, too, if memory serves, though I’m not sure that that pertains.
Impeccable science, however. In short, personal beliefs or states of sanity are not germane to scientific inquiry. Bacon, Occam, Newton and Pascal, upon which the most of the scientific enterprise has its foundations were all Christians. If Christian beliefs are sufficient to deem someone mad, and madmen cannot be allowed to be thought to think coherently, then the whole scientific enterprise is brought to question. Your question entails an ad hominem.
The framework I propose only pertains to these alternates – theism, deism, atheism, agnosis and no particular brand of any of them. Let’s stay on the subject.
Incidentally, what you call “arcane mathematics” is now taught to high school sophomores and juniors. If they can get it, you can.

Nick:

1. If we are a part of a computer simulation, then the programmer is our creator. Hence, God.
2. If are are part of a chemical experiment, the experimental designer is our creator. Hence, God.
3. Were this true, your timescale would have to be in a dimension of time other than would be common to any universe or megaverse. You don’t seem to understand time theory very well. Oddly, the timescale you suggest is equivalent to eternity in Jewish theological thinking and requires opponents – a God and devil.

4. The collective dream would of necessity be our reality, the reality would have to be something else, heaven, so to speak.
5. What in the world is an extra-universe? Nothing that could exist in a strictly material megaverse. Nonetheless, in this example the Dog becomes the creator. Hence, God.
Damon’s posit is more consistent with Occam’s razor than any of yours. If you wish to dismiss his, yours have to be elegant, not fantastic. Science fiction is fiction, not…

You misunderstand my use of the word “sanity”, although I could’ve been clearer – sorry.

I’m asking for your definition of “God”. I can’t divine from everything you’ve written whether you believe “he” embodies those characteristics I outlined in my last post or do you posit something altogether different? Perhaps something much more abstract? I ask because it’s possible we might be in violent agreement.

Bring on the arcane math! 🙂 I’ll do my best to keep up.

n

Don, thank you for your post–I wish I could be as eloquent.

@Nick, again, I must reiterate the topic of this post is “Why the “I Just Believe in One Less God than You” Argument Does not Work”.

So, unless I missed something, we seem to agree that the idea of “…believing in one less God than you…” in regards to atheism is non sequitur.

You gave some excellent examples of possibilities of ‘God’, but none of your examples was ‘no God’.

Regards, -D

Damon,
If your definition of “God” fits any of the examples I’ve suggested then it bears no resemblance to the “God” that the publishers of this site posit. i.e. “he” cares not one iota about the personal lives or interests of any of us.

If that’s the case then we agree. But you risk confusing the issue by referring to that entity as “God”, since “God” is already an overloaded term with definitions that already possess an inferred meaning (scripture and all).

To that end we should probably give a name to “him” that is distinctly different such that we distinguish between what most religious people refer to as “God” from the possibilities above. How about “Phil”? Or “Steve”?

Nick: (God question later)

(Four naturalistic theories of the universe in the last 100 yrs: steady state, expanding and contracting, self-explaining, megaverse. The first three assume time is infinite, the last that mass/energy is. In science, theories are given up slowly and not made unless required (law of parsimony). Megaverse theory exists because of the perceived inadequacies of the former).
There is not only one infinity. There is the Aleph infinity which includes all numbers. No other aleph infinity is known. Cantor observed, however, that there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2 (1.1, 1.01, 1.001, etc.). So, there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 1.1 or 1.0001, etc. Note that 4 is not a member of any of these sets. You could have an infinite number of golf balls and not one would have the diameter of a baseball. For current theory to be right, our universe must be in the set that allows naturalistic explanation. More to come. Questions?

Is the “megaverse” theory the same one covered in Steinhardt and Turok’s “Endless Universe”?

They went out from us because they were not of us in the first place.

Once the Holy Spirit is in someone, I believe that God preserves that person and won’t let them go.
So I have to question whether the so-called former christian ever was a christian in the sense that the Holy Spirit had entered them.
They may have intellectually claimed to be christian, but I doubt very much that they were supernatural christians.

The fact is, they were not of us in the first place if they have left.

Nick:

I am afraid I am not familiar with the book. There is more to read about out there than I or you have the time for. The terms megaverse and multiverse refer to theories to explain in naturalistic terms how we have come to where we are in view of the lack of material in the universe to account for all that is. The total mass of our universe is roughly 10^80 neutrons – that is mass available to make atoms. But much of this mass, 96%, is not available to make atoms. Were all the mass proximal and available, the number of interactions in 13.73 billion years is 10^120. In fact, because of the Big Bang, mass is flying away in all directions and the estimated number of actual interactions is only 10^40. But scientists are finding more and more things must happen to have a habitable planet. Probabilities for the likelihood of having a single habitable planet for intelligent life: low estimate:1in 10^200:high estimate:1 in 10^550+. Some probabilities are estimates, hence the…

I love the Tooth-fairy dismissal. See who inspires more belief in a 3 year old, the tooth fairy or god? Answer: tooth fairy. Why? Even to the 3 year old, there is more evidence that the tooth fairy exists than god. Sooner or later the child reject the tooth fairy as real once they learn the evidence wasn’t authentic. Non-theist, and to some extent agnostics, reject god for the same reason, the evidence isn’t authentic or is suspect. Put theism/non-theism into perspective. Read Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History of Everything”
Just my 2¢.