Searching for GOD...

[Dicky Underpants]

Wasn't that the irritation felt by John Robinson, who said that he had to publish 'Honest to God', as the result of critical scholarship had been shielded from rank and file Christians for a century?   And it did annoy traditionalists, I think.   AB's version of an open mind is like a parachute, everything falls  out.

wiggi

I think that was part of Robinson's agenda. I think that in the early Victorian period, this largely 'germanic' critical scholarship did take root in England - certainly T.H. Huxley seems to be aware of it. But there was a very strong backlash - particularly in America, which resulted in the intransigent stance of modern Fundamentalism. Whether the Brits were quite so horrified, I don't know. Perhaps Synod and other worthies thought that if they kept quiet, brushed it all under the carpet, then none of the faithful would ever notice, and things could continue just as before.
Strange though, isn't it, that the first person to translate Strauss into English was none other than George Eliot, and the work of Strauss and other Germans is alluded to by Will Ladislaw in 'Middlemarch' - as a put down to the decayed ideas of the Rev. Casaubon.
It is a paradox, though, that neither D.F. Strauss nor that great OT scholar Julius Wellhausen, wished to destroy the Christian faith (I think they both remained believers in some sense), but the effect has often caused a loss of faith in some. But if that is the price of starting to think for oneself after hundreds of years of indoctrination - so be it.

[Alan Burns]

This seems totally arbitrary, with no underlying logic at all. Questions abound.

How do you know that a "source" is needed?

because I exist

How are you defining "source" in this context?

The origin of all existence

How do you know that there is only one "ultimate source"?

Just think about it - - - There can't be two origins

How do you connect any "ultimate source" to anything resembling the Christian god?

God Himself made the connection

[Alan Burns]

I assume that whatever you believe your God to be, He is something rather than nothing. I assume that whatever you have decided is your idea of reality, it is something rather than nothing. So, if you make the statement that 'you can't get reality sourced from nothing' then surely the same must apply to your God. Alternatively, if you decide your God is outside of your idea of sourcing something from nothing, then anyone can apply the same argument to 'reality' whatever that may be(as long as it is something). It seems to me that you are in somewhat of a cleft stick situation here. My position is somewhat easier because whatever reality is, at least I don't have to bother about explaining the middle man(i.e. God) at all.

There is no middle man

[Stranger]

because I exist

Yes, and we have very good evidence about how you got here. So how about trying again and actually thinking about it?

The origin of all existence

Circular reasoning again. If you define "source" to mean "the origin of all existence" you have already assumed that it exists and that there is only one.

You really need to work on separating your premises from your conclusions.

Just think about it - - - There can't be two origins

Given your definition above, of course not - but you haven't made an argument for it, you just assumed it as a starting point.

God Himself made the connection

Back to totally baseless assertion without even a pretence at an argument.

Who are you hoping to convince with this sloppy thinking? If you have done software, you must be able to be reasonably logical. Think about what it is you are using as a starting point and how that has led you to your conclusions - then present them so it's absolutely clear what you are assuming and what you think you've concluded from it.

[Stranger]

I assume that whatever you believe your God to be, He is something rather than nothing. I assume that whatever you have decided is your idea of reality, it is something rather than nothing. So, if you make the statement that 'you can't get reality sourced from nothing' then surely the same must apply to your God. Alternatively, if you decide your God is outside of your idea of sourcing something from nothing, then anyone can apply the same argument to 'reality' whatever that may be(as long as it is something). It seems to me that you are in somewhat of a cleft stick situation here. My position is somewhat easier because whatever reality is, at least I don't have to bother about explaining the middle man(i.e. God) at all.

There is no middle man

Did you even bother to read the post you replied to? Your reply effectively said "there is no god"...

[SusanDoris]

There is no middle man


Did you even bother to read the post you replied to? Your reply effectively said "there is no god"...

I predict that your question will pass through the AB special filter that removes all difficult questions!!

[wigginhall]

wiggi

I think that was part of Robinson's agenda. I think that in the early Victorian period, this largely 'germanic' critical scholarship did take root in England - certainly T.H. Huxley seems to be aware of it. But there was a very strong backlash - particularly in America, which resulted in the intransigent stance of modern Fundamentalism. Whether the Brits were quite so horrified, I don't know. Perhaps Synod and other worthies thought that if they kept quiet, brushed it all under the carpet, then none of the faithful would ever notice, and things could continue just as before.
Strange though, isn't it, that the first person to translate Strauss into English was none other than George Eliot, and the work of Strauss and other Germans is alluded to by Will Ladislaw in 'Middlemarch' - as a put down to the decayed ideas of the Rev. Casaubon.
It is a paradox, though, that neither D.F. Strauss nor that great OT scholar Julius Wellhausen, wished to destroy the Christian faith (I think they both remained believers in some sense), but the effect has often caused a loss of faith in some. But if that is the price of starting to think for oneself after hundreds of years of indoctrination - so be it.

George Eliot is often forgotten as a notable atheist.   I think she translated Spinoza and Feuerbach, as well as Strauss, so she was quite a linguist and scholar.  I think she was influenced by the Feuerbach idea that religion while not objectively true, does express human yearnings and so on.  Quite a subtle position, I suppose.

[savillerow]

Msg 15675 Wigginhall "I wonder if he represents the intellectual collapse of christianity" Thats a pretty good statement. One that I think might be used many times in the future.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sav,

Msg 15675 Wigginhall "I wonder if he represents the intellectual collapse of christianity" Thats a pretty good statement. One that I think might be used many times in the future.

But I do wonder whether the contributions we see here really are the pinnacle of theistic thought, or indeed whether the arguments of WLC, Feser etc are. Surely there's better out there isn't there? Can the whole edifice of Christianity (and of theism in general) really be built on such flimsy foundations as the cosmological argument, claims of objective morality etc?

These arguments are a busted flush now - does anyone know of writers with arguments for their (or any other) gods that are cogent, robust, nuanced, anything in fact that would stand scrutiny?

If, say, we had the Archbish of Canterbury here and said, "OK, what are your best arguments for "God"?" what I wonder would he propose? 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sav,

But I do wonder whether the contributions we see here really are the pinnacle of theistic thought, or indeed whether the arguments of WLC, Feser etc are. Surely there's better out there isn't there? Can the whole edifice of Christianity (and of theism in general) really be built on such flimsy foundations as the cosmological argument, claims of objective morality etc?

These arguments are a busted flush now - does anyone know of writers with arguments for their (or any other) gods that are cogent, robust, nuanced, anything in fact that would stand scrutiny?

If, say, we had the Archbish of Canterbury here and said, "OK, what are your best arguments for "God"?" what I wonder would he propose?

What good would it do? In your #15635, you said this:

True, but we can it seems stop critical thinking - which is essentially what happens we we think "faith" provides meaningful answers. That it seems to me is the problem with claiming "God" to be the answer to anything - it's the end of critical thinking.

You can continue to be in denial of the problem, but you are your own worst enemy!

[SusanDoris]

Sav,

But I do wonder whether the contributions we see here really are the pinnacle of theistic thought, or indeed whether the arguments of WLC, Feser etc are. Surely there's better out there isn't there? Can the whole edifice of Christianity (and of theism in general) really be built on such flimsy foundations as the cosmological argument, claims of objective morality etc?

These arguments are a busted flush now - does anyone know of writers with arguments for their (or any other) gods that are cogent, robust, nuanced, anything in fact that would stand scrutiny?

If, say, we had the Archbish of Canterbury here and said, "OK, what are your best arguments for "God"?" what I wonder would he propose?

Oh, if only, if only, if only that could be arranged! I'd really like to ask him, 'How dare you come out with such zero-evidenced statements about a God? How dare you tell children that god is love and similar lies?'

But I've said all that before, haven't I? *sigh*

[Gordon]

You can continue to be in denial of the problem, but you are your own worst enemy!

What problem?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

What good would it do? In your #15635, you said this:

Quote

True, but we can it seems stop critical thinking - which is essentially what happens we we think "faith" provides meaningful answers. That it seems to me is the problem with claiming "God" to be the answer to anything - it's the end of critical thinking.

The “good” it would do would be (finally) to provide a reason to think that there might be something in the claim “God” after all - for example by finding a logical path from subjective faith to objective truth.

You can continue to be in denial of the problem, but you are your own worst enemy!

What “problem” do you think I’m denying?

[Alan Burns]

Yes, and we have very good evidence about how you got here. So how about trying again and actually thinking about it?

Circular reasoning again. If you define "source" to mean "the origin of all existence" you have already assumed that it exists and that there is only one.

You really need to work on separating your premises from your conclusions.

Given your definition above, of course not - but you haven't made an argument for it, you just assumed it as a starting point.

Back to totally baseless assertion without even a pretence at an argument.

Who are you hoping to convince with this sloppy thinking? If you have done software, you must be able to be reasonably logical. Think about what it is you are using as a starting point and how that has led you to your conclusions - then present them so it's absolutely clear what you are assuming and what you think you've concluded from it.

You are not really thinking outside the box of our physical universe.  Time is a property of our universe, but most likely not a property of whatever brought the universe into existence.  The ultimate source of all existence must exist in a timeless state, otherwise it would need a beginning which needs another source ...  (turtles all the way down!).

[torridon]

You are not really thinking outside the box of our physical universe.  Time is a property of our universe, but most likely not a property of whatever brought the universe into existence.  The ultimate source of all existence must exist in a timeless state, otherwise it would need a beginning which needs another source ...  (turtles all the way down!).

If there is an 'ultimate source' of everything, it is not going to be more complex than 'everything', it is going to be simpler, surely.  Complex things derive from simpler things and an ultimate source that is derivative does not make sense. An ultimate source would have to be irreducible to anything simpler - energy - for instance.  A god does not fit this, gods are imagined to have human-like mind-states which are both complex and derivative.

[Stranger]

You are not really thinking outside the box of our physical universe.

You have yet to provide an argument that there is something else.

Time is a property of our universe, but most likely not a property of whatever brought the universe into existence.

Which is an entirely different point. Yes, quite possibly time is not fundamental (loop quantum gravity, for example). Certainly time is not the fixed background imagined by Newton (general relativity tells us that). How does that help?

The ultimate source of all existence must exist in a timeless state, otherwise it would need a beginning which needs another source ...  (turtles all the way down!).

If the "ultimate source of all existence" exists (in a timeless state or otherwise), then it obviously isn't the ultimate source of all existence at all. That is, unless you think it's the source of its own existence - and if that is the case, why the added complexity? If something can be the source of its own existence, then maybe the universe is.

All of which has got you precisely nowhere as far as an argument for god is concerned. So, yet again, how about setting out your logical argument, starting with all your premises and then your conclusions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are not really thinking outside the box of our physical universe.

That's easy to do. Look: "unicorns".

See, I just thought "outside the box of our physical universe".

How does that help you, and what makes you think there's a non-physical in the first place?

Time is a property of our universe, but most likely not a property of whatever brought the universe into existence.  The ultimate source of all existence must exist in a timeless state, otherwise it would need a beginning which needs another source ...  (turtles all the way down!).

Lots of unargued and frankly ill-informed assertions there, but what makes you think time is linear in any case, or for that matter not eternal? 

[Alan Burns]

If there is an 'ultimate source' of everything, it is not going to be more complex than 'everything', it is going to be simpler, surely.  Complex things derive from simpler things and an ultimate source that is derivative does not make sense. An ultimate source would have to be irreducible to anything simpler - energy - for instance.  A god does not fit this, gods are imagined to have human-like mind-states which are both complex and derivative.

Your observation that complex things derive from simpler things I assume is based on the formation of life on this planet.  But this may not be a universal truth.  It is quite possible that for the great majority of this universe, the random forces of nature just produce increasing chaos rather than specific complexity.  And this is further evidence for the probability that the apparently random forces which produced life on this planet were in fact intelligently guided to produce the specific complexity of life as we know it.

[Gordon]

Your observation that complex things derive from simpler things I assume is based on the formation of life on this planet.  But this may not be a universal truth.  It is quite possible that for the great majority of this universe, the random forces of nature just produce increasing chaos rather than specific complexity.  And this is further evidence for the probability that the apparently random forces which produced life on this planet were in fact intelligently guided to produce the specific complexity of life as we know it.

You say 'specific complexity', Alan, no doubt to imply purpose or design - on what basis do you think complex things need to be 'specific'?

[Stranger]

Your observation that complex things derive from simpler things I assume is based on the formation of life on this planet.  But this may not be a universal truth.  It is quite possible that for the great majority of this universe, the random forces of nature just produce increasing chaos rather than specific complexity.  And this is further evidence for the probability that the apparently random forces which produced life on this planet were in fact intelligently guided to produce the specific complexity of life as we know it.

Unbelievable! You just indulged in entirely unsupported speculation and then called it "further evidence".

I think you should familiarize yourself with the term evidence.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

[floo]

As I think it highly likely there are intelligent lifeforms on other planets in our vast universe, it is possible some have much more knowledge than us about how it all came about. I suspect they would regard religion as weird, as the truth of the matter has nothing to do with any god.

[Alan Burns]

You say 'specific complexity', Alan, no doubt to imply purpose or design - on what basis do you think complex things need to be 'specific'?

The observation that the most complex things on this planet, such as the human DNA molecule, have the specific complexity needed to build and maintain a complete human being.

You may claim that other things produced as a result of random forces produce different types of complexity, but these types show no evidence of purpose or design, so could be labelled as unspecific complexity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your observation that complex things derive from simpler things I assume is based on the formation of life on this planet.  But this may not be a universal truth.  It is quite possible that for the great majority of this universe, the random forces of nature just produce increasing chaos rather than specific complexity.  And this is further evidence for the probability that the apparently random forces which produced life on this planet were in fact intelligently guided to produce the specific complexity of life as we know it.

Good grief.

First, the overwhelming evidence we have tells us that "the random forces of nature" do produce greater complexity all the time. That the universe will eventually end up with total entropy doesn't change that.

Second, how on earth did you just jump from a scientifically illiterate conjecture to a claim of "evidence"?

It's not impossible either that leprechauns leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. On the basis of this evidence, I hereby assert...

[Alan Burns]

As I think it highly likely there is intelligent lifeforms on other planets in our vast universe, it is possible some have much more knowledge than us about how it all came about. I suspect they would regard religion as weird, as the truth of the matter has nothing to do with any god.

I think it is highly likely that other intelligent life forms on other planets in our vast universe could not exist without God's creative intervention.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The observation that the most complex things on this planet, such as the human DNA molecule, have the specific complexity needed to build and maintain a complete human being.

Oh dear.

First, all that was necessary was that much simpler life than us came about. Evolution did the rest.

Second, you just committed the lottery winner's fallacy again. What's so special about little old you that makes you think your were some sort of end game all along? Do you really not see that, say, a (not very bright) bongle monster on Alpha Centauri could make exactly the same mistake?

Try looking up "anthropic principle" or even "Douglas Adams's puddle" to see where you went wrong.