Perfect.  You - personally - have exerted the energy necessary to get the rock to the top of the overpass.  You exert energy to hold it in place, then exert no more energy if you drop it.  Gravity and the kinetic energy of the moving vehicles below you and conservation of momentum do the rest of the work.

You - not much force exerted

resultant accident(s) - lots of energy expended, way more than you put in.

Granted, we could go relative and say the total energy expended is conserved.  That is, the sums of all forces involved - what you expended, what gravity expended and what all those moving cars expended - are measurable and add up to some tidy sum that balances with some other tidy sum and will get you an A+ on your physics homework.  And I'll go further.  If you want to tell me that energy is conserved throughout the universe(s), I will agree.

But when you start in with an invisible, immeasurable, supernatural force, I'm going to politely point you to the previous conservation of energy theory.  All forces have to balance.  If a force is external to a universe, there is no way it can affect that universe.  And that would be true for any "supernatural" force by definition.

I am not a physicist and those who understand quantum mechanics leave my understanding in the dust.  Given a choice between - "we are not certain" -  and - "god/s/dess did it" - I'll take the uncertainty.  I makes a lot more sense to me.

I got it - and the silly scenarios do have a purpose.  If Mr. M sees how silly his point is from comparing it with our silly points, maybe we got somewhere.

I understand asking the question, my confusion is about how you approach the answer.  Perhaps I should have been more specific.

Asking the questions makes sense to me.  It's neat, fun, etc.  What I don't understand is why you place actual value in a definitional word game or thought problem that is unfalsifiable.  A good portion of your world view seems to be centered around the idea that you can define a being into existence, even though you don't have any way to find out if you are right or wrong and in fact it is impossible to know if you're right or wrong.  If you were wrong the universe would function exactly as if you were right.

So why place that as a central pillar in your thinking?

Or did it go the other way, where the end result was a central portion of your belief and over time you've found this type of exercise to be the most satisfying form of confirmation for your existing belief structure?

I can understand the latter, but I can't understand the former.  It doesn't make sense how a person can talk themselves into such a corner without a reason pushing them along the way.

On the same idea, I don't understand how someone could even come up with these concepts outside of trying to justify deity belief or dualism.  It isn't like you would wake up one day and think of this stuff out of the blue, you've got to assume dualism and deity because they *feel* right and then come up with these arguments as justification.  I know sometimes people have good intuitive ideas, but they are only 'good' when they lead to some sort of falsifiable claim we can investigate.

I'm just trying to understand how a person gets to this point in their thinking, because it is foreign to me.

If the doctrine did not come with so much baggage. The trouble for me is that this sort induction shapes the acceptance of very odd things. The thinking the literary historical method can be used to prove the supernatural activities of Jesus for instance. The arbitrary inclusion of morals that are now outdated and contradictory. The idea that universal empathy is a concept that can be achieved in this reality not just be momentarily conceptualised.

Taken as a whole the bible is a religious Frankenstein. Most thoughtful christians are forced to cherry pick the elements that make sense to their inner moral compasses - whether they confess to this or no. 

Reality is indeed 'mid-boggling' - this doesn't justify falling back to an illogical and even more complicating and inexplicable idea of an super 'creator' being, which apparently doesn't need a creator, in an effort to hide the gaps in our knowledge.

If you cannot explain the origin of the universe from 'simpler' elements, introducing a God only makes matters worse, since it is even more inexplicable, and implies a divergent infinite regress, or has itself to simply appear from nothing, no less of a 'problem' that the absolutely minimal random energy field needed to serve as the origin of a God-free Universe.

Complex stuff is observed to come from simpler components everyday.

Spontaneous appearance of infinite beings has never, and physically could never be observed.

What is more plausible?

Clearly, "You can't handle the Truth, Mr_mertaphysics".

But that is a naked assumption - I know that "God is purported to have in himself the sufficient reason for his existence", but even you have just expressed it as a claim. That is a meaningless illogical statement in itself. A 'reason' within itself for its own existence? Are you kidding?? A thing can be the reason for its own existence?? This is the height of metaphysical nonsense. Believing that statement demonstrates that believers ARE illogical, even if they won't or csn't recognize it themselves.

Introducing an unnecessary, completely inexplicable being IS a complcation, since does not explain any 'gaps' in our naturalistic explanation, just papers over them with magic.

God IS presented as the 'reason' for things, which embraces both how and why. But in either case, it assumes that God doesn't need a reason for his existence, thereby failing to provide an Ultimate explanation.

Scientist do indeed investigate Why. Again you demonstrate a deep ignorance about the nature of the only valid search for knowledge, ie Science.

We gave you plenty of explicit examples that this is a totally false assumption/intuition.You have not refuted them.

No again.

Is a grown human more complex than a single cell?

Are the intricate shapes of a limeston cave not more complex and more ordered than the solid limestone and water from which they formed?

As a child, I often applied an electrical current to a salt solution through metal electrodes. Was not the incredible multicolored, multi-layered mix of gunk not more complex than the clear solution of one of the simplest substances in water that it emerged from?

Neither oxygen nor hydrogen can form icebergs or rainclouds by their individual natures, yet when they are allowed to combine, which they do with the slightest encouragement of a tiny spark, what the give rise to can do many things those simple gases cannot. 

Of course 'nothing can give to itself what it does not have' - that is not what I am claiming. Collections and combinations of one or more types of elementary 'bits' inevitably have attributes that are not possessed by the individual constituents, depending how the aggregation is structured. An atom has properties that are not possessed by individual neutrons, protons, and electrons.

The formation of a solar system of objects orbiting a star from formless cloud of gas and dust is pretty well understood in the broad, and can be simulated in a computer applying he law of gravity, the laws of motion, and the laws of thermodynamics.

It has not been demonstrated that even one 'infinite being' is logically consistent with our observed universe. It has not been shown logically that a creator of the universe is necessarily infinite anyway. Why can an infinite being not just "come into existence", if anything can? Tiny complementary particles appear to be able to.

Actually, it is logically possible for more than one infinite being to coexist, as long as there is at least one dimension or direction in which they are not infinite.

I study science as my prime interest. My passion can be described a search for Truth. Which is why I spend so much time here to help show to others the lies and delusions which underlie all such foolish superstitions. I have over time joined several sites, but have not found the time to keep up posting on all of them. I have found that more intensive participation in one reasonably active site with a number of members who I find congenial a more effective use of my available time at the moment.

"Real religions"? That is hilarious.

These days I mainly follow several podcasts on science. I also try and attend a local monthly meeting on science.

Your comments add to a thought I have had for a while - did you not post here under another handle, more specifically on the OA, even presenting that same expression of it in symbolic logic (or something very similar, AFAICR)? That poster eventually 'lost it', and started posting threads making all kinds of demeaning and insulting references to me personally, at least mostly to me. He also had dug up various bits of information about me to try and make me appear foolish or of poor judgement?

Look - the universe is made of hydrogen, oxygen and helium. Deeper still all matter is comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons. Odd then, is any depiction of an alternative reality that by its definition can never be known - the idea of a god who lives outside the universe, for instance, yet involves himself day to day. Bear in mind that parallel universes are a model. No one is insisting they are 100 per cent true and if you don't accept them you'll burn in a lake of fire.

Now, it's demonstrable that atoms and molecules have properties of self organisation. Do we understand the nature of abiogenesis - no. But is all life made of the most common elements found in the earth's crust? Yes. Our blood contains the same elements in different volumes as seawater. We can clearly see that from the moment of conception that all the processes of life are physical processes governed by biochemistry. Are we agreed on this?

I find your position on truth and logic interesting. Logic cannot prove god, as we know and truth - absolute truth may never be known. We can only say which model is best supported by evidence. The claimed nature of god means you can never know whether or not your assumptions are true. You are obliged to accept on the basis of your feelings. On faith. Under threat. It makes the idea of free will a complete joke, don't you think?

Yeah, I know a bit about the bible as former fundy christian and a preacher's son. I simply think it's contrived. I don't mind disagreeing with you over it. This business of a nasty god somehow supporting the truth about god is strange. God is not morally consistent. His commandments are truly pathetic. His character is a multiplicity. Is he the Canaanite high god El? Is he El's son Yahweh, the war god? Is he the sacrificial lamb? The holy spirit of human conscience? Our feelings of awe?

P'raps there was room for a god when there was no knowledge whatever but those days are gone. Our knowledge of the physical universe is deep. Why posit a supernatural cause when no such cause has ever/can never be seen? What is your motivation?

As I say. I'm relaxed about religious belief until there is arbitrary application of trademarks to general human morality followed by threats over a refusal to adhere to dogma and use of exclusive beliefs an excuse for the muslim and christian monotheists to wash their hands of acts which breach basic human rights. There is no excuse for this behaviour - ever.

It's always a cause of humour to me that the OT god fails to live up to the moral precepts of the 'modern' Roman jesus. That christians fail to see this is more bizarre still.

What you put on the internet is fair game for everyone to read.  If Bob wanted that information private, then he should not have posted it.  If I put on my profile that I am the owner of a bordello, then you would more than likely allocate part of your posts to questioning my Christian values.  The only difference here is that the information Bob posted about himself was not on this particular web site.

I am not borrowing bible morality from a mere 1500BC. It's you who borrows human morality that has evolved over millions of years. We are far older than your dogma.

As a theist you seek to trademark core human moralities that are generally subjective and cultural. There are no universal moral laws tho' endeavouring not to cause hurt to other beings is something most humans, given our close relationships and mirror neurons, seem to share to some extent.

Do you seriously suggest there was no human feeling of right and wrong before the jews/babylonians wrote those lame ten commandments? Can you prove this to be true?

Absolute morality is an assertion, not a religious tenet. It has never been shown to exist and cannot be measured. The fact morality depends on point of view is endlessly demonstrable.

Further, morals can be shown to develop over time from conventional morality of reward and punishment, to post conventional empathetic morality to elevated conceptions of universal empathy. No one is born morally whole or even moral at all. These principles are learned.

Morality is not universal and I am still entitled to criticise the failed morality of the god of the OT. I don't require universal morality to do that. In my opinion the morality of the bronze age was flawed. In your opinion it may be justified because humans chose to swim in a lightning storm. I think you are wrong and you obviously feel the same way about me. Where is the universal morality here? Show me your universal moral code. Is it written somewhere?

By 'universal', I take it that you mean 'objective'.  That you are free criticize the ethics of another person is true, but what I am looking for is a rational basis for doing so.   Ethics are normative, which is to say that they are statements telling us what we should or should not do.  By declaring the God of the OT to be evil, you are effectively telling him and everyone else that what he does should not be done.  What justification do you have for your ethical system?  Just saying, 'In my opinion, it is wrong' does not seem to be sufficient justification for you to say that someone should not do something.

The basic rationale for considering whether an action is 'wrong', which makes most sense to me, is whether it is likely to cause harm, pain, or distress to another, for no ultimate benefit to them, against their wishes. I include  the 'ultimate benefit' factor to allow for treatments for injury or disease which may cause pain in the process.

The closest to a general moral 'rule' is the negative 'golden rule', "do not do to others what you would not wish done to yourself".

The more common positive version does not make allowance for differences among individuals as to what they actually like.

The origin is clearly evolutionary for a social species such as ourselves to maximize cooperation which depends on mutual assistance to maximize survival.

Any general discussion beyond these considerations is superfluous, AFAICS. There will be endless disagreement about the details, as with any matter of significance to us.

The evidence for a God as moral arbiter is all against such a thing, IMHO. You get into the classic 'problem of evil', which only arises in the attempt to introduce the idea of a 'good' God. Throw out the God hypothesis, and everything makes much more sense.

Of course the ""Big Bang" models do not rule out an indefinite past for the Universe in the broader sense" ... but they also don’t rule out the existence of a First Cause!

I know why you guys are so allergic to the hypostasized existence of a FC... because it's a first step to general theists cry GOD. And you can't stand that!

That's ok I understand. However nothing that I've ever discussed here proved me without doubt that a FC is close to impossible. On the contrary. General cosmological theory and philosophical arguments always said to me that the existence of a FC is more likely than not... whatever that FC is! This is a key point in my theory! From a FC I don't jump in lightly to any conclusion, much less to a "God". I don't know what the FC is, period. But probably has a strange relation to this Universe since it seems to have no temporal, spatial or material intrinsic bonds to this reality.

I think this paper is has a strong point towards a FC. Even if I was an atheist it would be stupid to be completely against a FC... but I guess I could never have your agenda against everything that seems remotely religious. That would have undermined my good judgment. Having said that... my knowledge of science doesn’t permit me to read this paper in a comprehensive way....

It always seemed to me that 'first cause' arguments--even if they were true--invalidates all known religions. So the Christian god is a formless first cause of everything? Oh...I thought he was a personal god directly involved with 'us'. *shrugs* Well, I guess you'll reject christianity now 

The FC argument presents no argument or evidence for a specific God corresponding to that FC. That is a completely justifable statement, whether I am 'inclined' that way ornot.

I am indeed 'inclined' to certain ideas, such as that it is willfully ignorant to accept anything without at least something to support it. And to prefer truth over fantasy and myth as an explanation of the world.

ok, I should have made it clear I was using the impersonal, generic 'you'. 

I thought you were a theist?