Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

[uwot]

Anybody who has landed at Probability-1 (infinite belief) or Probability-0 (infinite disbelief) is dogmatic.

Which some people are.

I can answer for myself (an agnostic). I haven't heard of a testable definition of "God", so I can't speak of falsifiability yet.

Yeah, it's worth reminding people: "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology."  That's the definition given by Thomas Huxley who invented the word. Fair enough, it has come to mean 'I don't know' and if that is your position, and frankly it should be, you are still free to believe that there is a god, which is theism; that there is no god, which is anti-theism; or you may simply not believe there is a god, which is the default atheist position.

[Immanuel Can]

I can answer for myself (an agnostic). I haven't heard of a testable definition of "God", so I can't speak of falsifiability yet, and if you were to provide me with a testable definition it has to be falsifiable.

Actually, if something is verifiable, it does not need to be falsifiable. The verifiability standard is higher than the falsifiability one. If you can actually verify that something exists, you don't need to ask, "How can I falsify its existence."

Moreover, there are rational claims that are not falsifiable, such as "The universe has a size." Nobody knows what that size is, and nobody can falsify the claim; it's a deduction from a) the presence of our local universe, plus b) the expansion of the universe. But it's very rational, because the existence of the universe is itself verifiable.

An interesting footnote about the application of the falsifiability claim, in relation to the God argument: the guy who invented it was an Atheist, at the time. He gave that up, after further reflection, and moved to a form of Deism. That was Anthony Flew, who late in his life, also wrote in PN.

[Logik]

The verifiability standard is higher than the falsifiability one. If you can actually verify that something exists, you don't need to ask, "How can I falsify its existence."

Is this a falsifiable belief? Is there any evidence that can sway you to believe the opposite claim ?

Or perhaps you are just looking at it wrong. Unfortunately your entire argument rests on your own conception of "existence", and it seems you have calibrated your classifier on a Boolean scale. Things either exist or they don't. Which makes it trivial for me to ask you yes/no questions.

1. Does gravity exist?
2. Does energy exist?

You can ask the exact same questions about the concepts of time, mass, distance, temperature etc.

How would you verify the existence of any of those things?

Moreover, there are rational claims that are not falsifiable, such as "The universe has a size." Nobody knows what that size is, and nobody can falsify the claim; it's a deduction from a) the presence of our local universe, plus b) the expansion of the universe. But it's very rational, because the existence of the universe is itself verifiable.

To continue from above:

3. Does the universe exist?

How would you verify that the universe exists?

That's a deep rabbit hole. In my taxonomy you can have rational actions. Rational beliefs or rational claims is a misnomer.

To me "The Universe" is just a collective noun. The noun exists. Whether the thing that the noun signifies exists - I have no idea.

I could be in a solipsistic realm.
I could be a brain in a vat.

So what?

At the very least you are using duplicit language. Because I can't fathom an episteme in which you can make this three claims at the same time:
The Universe exists.
God exists.
God exists outside of the Universe.

The way I use the phrase "The Universe" is to mean "All that is knowable".

An interesting footnote about the application of the falsifiability claim, in relation to the God argument: the guy who invented it was an Atheist, at the time. He gave that up, after further reflection, and moved to a form of Deism. That was Anthony Flew, who late in his life, also wrote in PN.

No. I think you haven't made your way to metacognition yet.

There is belief. There is also belief about belief.

Do you know that you believe in God; or do you believe that you believe in God?

In fact. I keep making this very challenge to everyone. I am an agnostic, but for the sake of science I will change my mind.
I will CHOOSE a side. And so I am telling you. Truthfully and honestly. I have now chosen a side. I am not either an Atheist or a Theist.

As far as you are concerned my (A)Theism is in superposition. What measurements would you take to collapse the wave function?

[Immanuel Can]

Is this a falsifiable belief?

Verifiable.

However, all empirical claims are probabilistic.

I can't fathom an episteme in which you can make this three claims at the same time:
The Universe exists.
God exists.
God exists outside of the Universe.

The way I use the phrase "The Universe" is to mean "All that is knowable".

Your problem is with the way you use the phrase, then. For the universe itself isn't "all knowable" to you. It's far bigger than your knowledge, and presently expanding. So there's no chance those two phrases are equivalent.

Do you know that you believe in God; or do you believe that you believe in God?

All empirical claims are probabilistic. You "believe" everything you "know." There is no such thing as "knowing-without-believing-that..." or "knowing-beyond-all-probabilties," except in the deductive realm, the realm of closed systems of symbols.

[Logik]

Your problem is with the way you use the phrase, then. For the universe itself isn't "all knowable" to you. It's far bigger than your knowledge, and presently expanding. So there's no chance those two phrases are equivalent.

I didn't say "all knowable to me". I said all that is KNOWABLE.

Given finite time and finite memory there is a limit to HOW MUCH I can know, but there is no limit to WHAT can be known. By a human. 10000000 years from now.

The bounds to epistemology are physics. And time.

All empirical claims are probabilistic. You "believe" everything you "know." There is no such thing as "knowing-without-believing-that..." or "knowing-beyond-all-probabilties," except in the deductive realm, the realm of closed systems of symbols.

All the axioms in your "deductive realm" are the product of inductive reasoning.

If they aren't the product of empiricism, then they are as good as guesswork.

So, if your talk of "God" is not in the inductive (empirical) or deductive realm then what realm is it in?

[Immanuel Can]

Your problem is with the way you use the phrase, then. For the universe itself isn't "all knowable" to you. It's far bigger than your knowledge, and presently expanding. So there's no chance those two phrases are equivalent.

I didn't say "all knowable to me". I said all that is KNOWABLE.

But it's not. Not to anyone.

The universe is expanding. Unless it stops, you will never know its contents. Nor will anybody but God. And what it's expanding into, about that, you and I know nothing and probably never will.

All empirical claims are probabilistic. You "believe" everything you "know." There is no such thing as "knowing-without-believing-that..." or "knowing-beyond-all-probabilties," except in the deductive realm, the realm of closed systems of symbols.

All the axioms in your "deductive realm" are the product of inductive reasoning.

Of course. So that means that at root, it's all just as I said...inductive.

If they aren't the product of empiricism, then they are as good as guesswork.

Empiricism is a kind of "guesswork": not wild guesswork, but a guesswork premised on the argument to the best explanation of any phenomenon. It's a kind of disciplined guessing that is premised on observation...really, it's what they call a "method."

Meanwhile, "empirical" and "inductive" are not exact synonyms. The "empirical" is merely a sub-category of the "inductive." You can have probabilistic knowledge based on theories, for example. Theories are products of human ingenuity...the empirical world does not present them to us per se. We human beings make an observation, idea or prediction into a theory, and a theory into a test, and a test into an evidence, and an evidence into a conclusion.

That's the method. But it's shot through with probabilistic "guesses," to use your word. We don't know any of it absolutely, even after tests: because nobody's ever done the complete set of possible tests of even one such question. So what we have instead is "more probable belief."

[Logik]

But it's not. Not to anyone.

The universe is expanding. Unless it stops, you will never know its contents. Nor will anybody but God. And what it's expanding into, about that, you and I know nothing and probably never will.

If the universe is expanding, and god is on the "outside" then you are necessarily moving further and further from your final destination.

You have a bit of a problem, don't you?

[Immanuel Can]

If the universe is expanding, and god is on the "outside" then you are necessarily moving further and further from your final destination.

Heh. You think God is spacially "outside" the universe, like a planet hanging on the rim of a solar system?

Yeah, if that was what "God" was, I'd have a problem, alright. I'd have no idea what immanence and transcendence were, so I'd have no clue what the word "God" even means.

[Logik]

Heh. You think God is spacially "outside" the universe, like a planet hanging on the rim of a solar system?

Yeah, if that was what "God" was, I'd have a problem, alright. I'd have no idea what immanence and transcendence were, so I'd have no clue what the word "God" even means.

Let me remind you that you are the one using the qualifier "exists" for both God and The Universe.

If you are using that word in different senses depending on the subject, you should probably clarify the various modes of "existence" you can conceptualize.

If both The Universe AND God exist in the same sense then they exist in relation to each other... so you have a problem.

[Immanuel Can]

Let me remind you that you are the one using the qualifier "exists" for both God and The Universe.

And?

You use a verb like "to be" in all kinds of different applications...often more than one way in a single sentence. Everybody does. It's used for predications of all kinds, for example, and as a synonym for "exist."

I can't help but notice that for a guy who claims it's all about language games, you've certainly got some odd ideas about how the English language works.

[Logik]

You use a verb like "to be" in all kinds of different applications...often more than one way in a single sentence. Everybody does. It's used for predications of all kinds, for example, and as a synonym for "exist."

I can't help but notice that for a guy who claims it's all about language games, you've certainly got some odd ideas about how the English language works.

I am also the guy who claims that all truth is conceptual first and foremost, and that language is a consequence of concepts. So I am perfectly happy to expand on my metacognitive processes where you think I am equivocating. "Testability" and "falsifiability" are just particular cases of Bayesian inference

Can you do the same with "exists" ?

[Immanuel Can]

Can you do the same with "exists" ?

You're still thinking "exists" is a single predication. Different things "exist as..." different things. To say that something "exists" is to leave the particular mode of "existing" unspecified.

You seem to have an idea that the only way to "exist" is as some sort of object. It seems that the idea that something can transcend your ability to objectify it, and yet still really exist, has so far escaped you.

Ironically, the "you" that thinks this is one of those things. And the "me" to which you pose the question is another. There would be no conversation at all without those two, whose existence you take for granted; and whatever they are, they aren't physical objects. That's the irony of materialism: it has no account of the very person who believes it.

[attofishpi]

I can answer for myself (an agnostic). I haven't heard of a testable definition of "God", so I can't speak of falsifiability yet.

Yeah, it's worth reminding people: "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

Had to chuck in some colour there uwot, just to highlight the point I am addressing.

Oh shit Hux, what have I done...as one that has spouted off about my knowledge of 'something' that is the ongoing construct of our reality?

You may be able to help me here with my ignorance. If I have a 'bunch' of what I see as anomalies (that can be observed by all) beyond the possibility of natural causality, in other words, something that must be at the most fundamental point of reality where only these anomalies could have formed via an entity that has the ability to control reality at its most fundamental scale - that which constructs reality - would this be called 'evidence' of some sort of probability - or wot uwot!?
What would be the closest term scientifically of philosophically?
..or is there no such duck?

[Logik]

Can you do the same with "exists" ?

You're still thinking "exists" is a single predication. Different things "exist as..." different things. To say that something "exists" is to leave the particular mode of "existing" unspecified.

It's all irrelevant when we talk about "ALL things that exist". There is a commonality - an essence to existence, shared by all things that exist.
If there isn't - you are equivocating.

You seem to have an idea that the only way to "exist" is as some sort of object. It seems that the idea that something can transcend your ability to objectify it, and yet still really exist, has so far escaped you.

I have said that? Please point out where. My position is like this: I don't know (nor care to define) what existence is, but if something has no testable consequences it does not exist.

Ironically, the "you" that thinks this is one of those things. And the "me" to which you pose the question is another. There would be no conversation at all without those two, whose existence you take for granted; and whatever they are, they aren't physical objects. That's the irony of materialism: it has no account of the very person who believes it.

"You" and "me" have testable consequences. "you" and "me" ask questions and have conversations. And therefore it cannot be said that "you" and "me' do not exist.

Does that mean that we exist? No. But it doesn't mean we do not exist.

I guess you haven't joined the dots between epistemology and apophatic theology yet.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, a cat exists as a different thing to a dog, but they exist within the same realm of existence.

Too easy a case...just two animals.

Rocks exist, but have no animal existence. Souls /identities/ personalities / minds exist, but are not made of materials.

My position is like this: Something cannot exist if it does not interact with its surroundings.

Then if "God created the universe," as the OP asks, then He has no "surroundings," but does interact with material reality.

Something cannot exist if it has no testable consequences.

Things like revelation or the Incarnation are normative historical claims, and thus are as empirically open to testing as any historical claims are.

"You" and "me" have testable consequences. "you" and "me" ask questions.

How do you "test" me?

To you, I'm only a cyber-cypher. I could be a very clever bot...with no real "me" at all. Right now, I have no body. I could be a collocation of happenstance consonants and vowels generated randomly. (In fact, there'd be a far greater statistical chance of that being true than of the observable universe being a product of mere accident.)