Thanks for that. I really enjoyed it also.

Lets say a dead body is found in the woods and it is an investigator's task to determine cause of death. The investigator is likely to examine the body and try to identify things that are known to kill a person.

If the body has slash mark and teeth marks and bear saliva, then the investigator may be drawn to the conclusion that the person was killed by a bear. The reason the investigator might conclude this is because we can study bears, we can observe how they defend themselves or kill prey. There is an understanding of how bears work and recorded precedent for the affects on a person when they are attacked by a bear. If the body is bound, gagged, and has a bullet wound in the head, the inspector might conclude murder. If a toxicology report shows the person ingested a dangerous plant nearby, the inspector might conclude they ate something poisonous. etc. etc. etc.

The investigator draws on knowledge of things that are known to be harmful to humans in making their deductions and conclusions about the cause of death. Now, back to the bear example . . . If the investigator were to conclude that the person were killed by a spider which had been mutated and engineered by aliens, given claws, and cross bred with a bear - thus accounting for why bear saliva was found. . . . we would think the investigator mad. The reason we would think them mad is that there is no precedent for this type of mutated spider or aliens or anything else in the story. The investigator has not drawn from what most of us would consider to be part of the bank of human knowledge. What can be said, however, is that the investigator has provided a solution to the question which satisfies all of the known data and observations about the death. The question of what caused the person's death is a very specific shaped 'hole' and the investigator has created a solution in that exact shape.

Now, the investigator could be correct and the alien spider theory. And I have no problem if that is what the investigator believes, but I think it would be fair to say that all of us here would classify this theory as not being supported by observation or knowledge.

With the question of the origin of the universe or the origin of existence, human beings are at a tremendous disadvantage in that relevant knowledge in the bank of human knowledge is limited on the topic. Unlike a human death, we cannot pull from a knowledge of natural universes and God made universes to identify which universe we live in.

Past civilizations trying to determine what caused lightning or earthquakes took lighting and earthquake shaped questions and solved them with lighting and earthquake shaped Gods to solve the question. And today we take questions about the creation of time, space, and matter and fill that hole with a God that is timeless, spaceless, and exists in another dimension. What do the words 'timeless', 'spaceless', and 'extradimensional' mean? Well, these concepts have the properties of solving for what we do now know or understand about time, space, and outside dimensions. We cannot observe, test, or prove that timelessness, spacelessness, and extradimensionality even exist. BUT - they perfectly fit into the holes. . . . so it must be right. Just like the space alien mutating the spider must be right since it fills in the holes of the mystery of the person's death.

Next, when we conclude that the dead body was caused by bear or poison or gunshot wound, we presume to know something about how bears work or how poison works or how guns and bullets work. When we conclude that the universe has a natural cause or was caused by God, we presume to know something about how nature works or how God works. And this is the presumption I object to. To say that you know that God created the universe assumes that you understand how God makes universes and how God-made universes MUST look.

Years from now, when some bright new scientist inevitably discovers something which turns one of the S-U-R-G-E theories on its head, will it cause you to abandon God and conclude that God does not exist? Or will it cause you change the shape of God to fill the new shape of the hole? If the latter, it is because you have a priori concluded that God is the answer. And it could be the right answer, but its not supported by observation or scientific knowledge. It is supported by faith.

TLDR; SURGE science doesn't prove is not evidence that God created the universe. Frank Turek observed a question about the origins of existence that has a specific 'hole' and created a solution to it that fits that hole. And the only problem I have with it is that he is pretending its science. It isn't. It is faith. And I think that is 100% totally fine and that he should own that rather than be ashamed of believing in something on faith that isn't observationally supported.

I just enjoyed his reasoning…and the civil discussion.

I don't know enough to try and prove anything.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Lets say a dead body is found in the woods and it is an investigator's task to determine cause of death. The investigator is likely to examine the body and try to identify things that are known to kill a person.

If the body has slash mark and teeth marks and bear saliva, then the investigator may be drawn to the conclusion that the person was killed by a bear. The reason the investigator might conclude this is because we can study bears, we can observe how they defend themselves or kill prey. There is an understanding of how bears work and recorded precedent for the affects on a person when they are attacked by a bear. If the body is bound, gagged, and has a bullet wound in the head, the inspector might conclude murder. If a toxicology report shows the person ingested a dangerous plant nearby, the inspector might conclude they ate something poisonous. etc. etc. etc.

The investigator draws on knowledge of things that are known to be harmful to humans in making their deductions and conclusions about the cause of death. Now, back to the bear example . . . If the investigator were to conclude that the person were killed by a spider which had been mutated and engineered by aliens, given claws, and cross bred with a bear - thus accounting for why bear saliva was found. . . . we would think the investigator mad. The reason we would think them mad is that there is no precedent for this type of mutated spider or aliens or anything else in the story. The investigator has not drawn from what most of us would consider to be part of the bank of human knowledge. What can be said, however, is that the investigator has provided a solution to the question which satisfies all of the known data and observations about the death. The question of what caused the person's death is a very specific shaped 'hole' and the investigator has created a solution in that exact shape.

Now, the investigator could be correct and the alien spider theory. And I have no problem if that is what the investigator believes, but I think it would be fair to say that all of us here would classify this theory as not being supported by observation or knowledge.

With the question of the origin of the universe or the origin of existence, human beings are at a tremendous disadvantage in that relevant knowledge in the bank of human knowledge is limited on the topic. Unlike a human death, we cannot pull from a knowledge of natural universes and God made universes to identify which universe we live in.

Past civilizations trying to determine what caused lightning or earthquakes took lighting and earthquake shaped questions and solved them with lighting and earthquake shaped Gods to solve the question. And today we take questions about the creation of time, space, and matter and fill that hole with a God that is timeless, spaceless, and exists in another dimension. What do the words 'timeless', 'spaceless', and 'extradimensional' mean? Well, these concepts have the properties of solving for what we do now know or understand about time, space, and outside dimensions. We cannot observe, test, or prove that timelessness, spacelessness, and extradimensionality even exist. BUT - they perfectly fit into the holes. . . . so it must be right. Just like the space alien mutating the spider must be right since it fills in the holes of the mystery of the person's death.

Next, when we conclude that the dead body was caused by bear or poison or gunshot wound, we presume to know something about how bears work or how poison works or how guns and bullets work. When we conclude that the universe has a natural cause or was caused by God, we presume to know something about how nature works or how God works. And this is the presumption I object to. To say that you know that God created the universe assumes that you understand how God makes universes and how God-made universes MUST look.

Years from now, when some bright new scientist inevitably discovers something which turns one of the S-U-R-G-E theories on its head, will it cause you to abandon God and conclude that God does not exist? Or will it cause you change the shape of God to fill the new shape of the hole? If the latter, it is because you have a priori concluded that God is the answer. And it could be the right answer, but its not supported by observation or scientific knowledge. It is supported by faith.

TLDR; SURGE science doesn't prove God created the universe. Frank Turek observed a question about the origins of existence that has a specific 'hole' and created a solution to it that fits that hole. And the only problem I have with it is that he is pretending its science. It isn't. It is faith. And I think that is 100% totally fine and that he should own that rather than be ashamed of believing in something on faith that isn't observationally supported.

---

SURGE doesn't try to prove the existence of God, it proves the existence of something that transcends our understanding of nature and science and for him, labels that thing God. The best it can get you to is that belied in the supernatural and intelligent design is reasonable and follows a logical progression.

Nowhere does this prove the Christian God or Jesus Christ. My faith teaches that God reveals himself to every individual at some point in their life. If you are not dead, maybe your time has not come yet.

Never heard of SURGE. TAG from Orthodox origins does give a coherent account for God and justification. Here's Jay Dyer with Dillahunty. Fun fact, Dillahunty left his wife for a ******. In summary, science has a huge list of assumptions and the atheist/materialist doesn't have justification for universals. Open to hearing anything from an atheist though.

Hilarious.