Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

What brought things into existence?
What is responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry?
What is responsible for the incredible fine tuning of the forces and materials needed to bring life into existence?
What facilitated the billions of beneficial mutations which brought us into existence?
What inspired the human race to seek reason and purpose beyond mere survival?
Discovering how things work does not exclude evidence of the God who made things work and who has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

This is a mish mash of incredulity, begging the question and unsupported assumptions about the nature of reality.  Who said things were 'brought into existence' anyway ?  These questions might be hard to fathom, but the answer 'Goddidit' is a simplistic retort and is unsatisfying anyway as it merely moves the goalposts from where did things come from to where did God come from and the question of where God came from is an even harder question to fathom than the one which it purports to answer.  In other words, this is a false friend argument; it is superficially appealing, but in reality it answers nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is a mish mash of incredulity, begging the question and unsupported assumptions about the nature of reality.  Who said things were 'brought into existence' anyway ?  These questions might be hard to fathom, but the answer 'Goddidit' is a simplistic retort and is unsatisfying anyway as it merely moves the goalposts from where did things come from to where did God come from and the question of where God came from is an even harder question to fathom than the one which it purports to answer.  In other words, this is a false friend argument; it is superficially appealing, but in reality it answers nothing.

But the trouble is Torridon, God may have done.

[Outrider]

The problem is that we perceive everything to be within the time dimension we experience in our universe, which leads us to the infinite regress of things going back in time without end.

You are already positing something outside of time in your creation myth, so that can't be that problematic.

We find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of this time dimension, but the Christian Gospel gives us an insight into the ever present state of God -  “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58

That's not 'insight', in the context of considering a framework without time 'before' has no meaning, notwithstanding the literally BILLIONS OF YEARS that passed before Abraham was retrospectively invented and inserted into legend.

Having a single source of creation outside of time makes more sense than an infinite regress of sources.

Why? I'd say cause and effect (notwithstanding how that might be effective outside of our understanding of time) continuing as we witness it happening makes more sense than inventing a magical creator to just wish the argument away.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But the trouble is Torridon, God may have done.

Anything may have done anything. What "trouble" do you think you've identified here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If existence is in some sense infinite, then the question of what created it becomes somewhat meaningless.

What is it and or where is this thing that has existed infinitely, given that we seem to be surrounded by things plural that have not existed infinitely?

However, if  there is a valid answer to that question, my answer is 'I don't know'. and nor do you actually.

But he has given it a name whereas you have effectively declared it the "Thing which must not be named or indeed explored any further.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What brought things into existence?

What makes you think it’s necessary that something “brought things into existence”?

What is responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry?

What makes you think something must be “responsible” for the laws of physics and chemistry?

What is responsible for the incredible fine tuning of the forces and materials needed to bring life into existence?

What makes you think that there’s any “fine tuning?”

What facilitated the billions of beneficial mutations which brought us into existence?

What makes you think that there were “beneficial” mutations that were goal-directed?

What inspired the human race to seek reason and purpose beyond mere survival?

Intelligence.

Discovering how things work does not exclude evidence of the God who made things work and who has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

There is  no such evidence, or at least none that you’ve been able to produce.

It's sometimes said that there are no stupid questions. That’s not true.

Oh, and as you just ignored it last time, here again is why exactly the arguments you rely on to justify your claims “god”, “souls” etc also justifies my claim “gravity pixies”.

1. There are gaps in the current materialist explanations for consciousness/gravity

2. Therefore a materialist explanation for consciousness/gravity is impossible

3. I refuse to justify my claim 2 with an argument, and when pressed will only attempt to shift the burden of proof by demanding that you tell me how consciousness/gravity works. Any explanation you give me I will however tell you "beggars belief", but I won't tell you why

4. Because a materialist explanations for consciousness/gravity is "impossible", that gives me licence to insert the faith claim explanation souls/gravity pixies

5. There is no evidence at all for souls/gravity pixies but I apply a different standard of evidence to these claims from the standard I apply to the materialist explanations for consciousness/gravity

6. Souls/gravity pixies are logical impossibilities because each would necessitate an infinite regress – souls would need other souls to do their thinking etc, gravity pixies would need other gravity pixies to hold them down etc. I don’t care about that though because both are magic

7. Therefore souls/gravity pixies are real     

Does it really not occur to you that there’s probably something wrong with your reasoning? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Anything may have done anything. What "trouble" do you think you've identified here?

No, The impossible cannot do the impossible.
As an agnostic atheist you must acknowledge that God may have done so. I doubt that you and your fans have actually faced up to that.
Agnosticism is to your atheism what your appendix is to your digestive system.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But he has given it a name whereas you have effectively declared it the "Thing which must not be named or indeed explored any further.

A "don't know" is not a concession that there is a "Thing which must not be named or indeed explored any further". It's just a don't know. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, The impossible cannot do the impossible.

That’s a different matter to your mistake about thinking something “may” have done something is troublesome, but in any case AB is asserting “impossibles” because they rely on infinite regresses.

As an agnostic atheist you must acknowledge that God may have done so. I doubt that you and your fans have actually faced up to that.

Why have you just repeated the same stupidity? Leaving aside all your definitional problems about what you’d even mean by “God”, acknowledging that a “god” may have done a spot of universe-creating, giving leukaemia to babies etc is epistemologically no more significant than acknowledging that invisible pixies may be causing gravity. So what?   

Agnosticism is to your atheism what your appendix is to your digestive system.

Presumably that meant something to you when you typed it?

[Outrider]

What is it and or where is this thing that has existed infinitely, given that we seem to be surrounded by things plural that have not existed infinitely?

The universe, given that time begins to exist inside it may be considered infinite in some ways. More broadly, the cosmos in which our universe exists.

But he has given it a name whereas you have effectively declared it the "Thing which must not be named or indeed explored any further.

On the contrary, he's said that until more investigation is done you cannot be declarative about the idea that a god did it - if we don't know, we don't know. It's not we don't know, therefore god.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The universe, given that time begins to exist inside it may be considered infinite in some ways. More broadly, the cosmos in which our universe exists.

On the contrary, he's said that until more investigation is done you cannot be declarative about the idea that a god did it - if we don't know, we don't know. It's not we don't know, therefore god.

O.

If he is proposing that there may be something infinite and fundamental he can explore the implications of that

E.G. The term "Fundamental " speaks to me of something basic, simple,  ultimate, basic to any heirarchy...an infinite fundamental
Speaks to me of existential Independence from anything which is existentially dependent on it. Moreover and more problematic is that the term fundamental.suggests the non fundamental. Only a person suspending logic could IMHO suggest something fundamental could also be simultaneously non fundamental.

Raising the possibility of something therefore has implications. To meet with them with a shrugged "Dunno" looks and is evasion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Raising the possibility of something therefore has implications.

Not unless the person raising it can justify the claim it hasn't.

To meet with them with a shrugged "Dunno" looks and is evasion.

Been a while since you tried the shifting the burden of proof fallacy. As you cannot disprove the possibility "pixies" either, is your "dunno" in response an evasion too? Why not? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not unless the person raising it can justify the claim it hasn't.

Been a while since you tried the shifting the burden of proof fallacy. As you cannot disprove the possibility "pixies" either, is your "dunno" in response an evasion too? Why not?

I'm not shifting the burden of proof here just exploring the implications of a suggestion that there might not be a god but something else which is infinite and fundamental.

Something agnostic atheists should be doing but perhaps lack the courage because they might come up with ideas unacceptable to, as Jeremy P may put it, the philosophies people have built from their atheism.

[Outrider]

If he is proposing that there may be something infinite and fundamental he can explore the implications of that

The implications, in this context, are that the claim 'there must be an unmoved mover that caused the universe' is not a valid claim.

E.G. The term "Fundamental " speaks to me of something basic, simple,  ultimate, basic to any heirarchy...an infinite fundamental

Which isn't a problem as I don't think we'd fit into anyone's definition of a fundamentalist.

Speaks to me of existential Independence from anything which is existentially dependent on it.

If it speaks to you like that you need to learn to read, that's just a meaningless jumble of words.

Moreover and more problematic is that the term fundamental.

Given that you're the person who introduced the term, the problem would seem to be yours, along with any claims you think are implicit because of it.

suggests the non fundamental.

It suggests the possibility, yes - you'll note we're proposing that there might not be something fundamental, no bottom turtle in the tower.

Only a person suspending logic could IMHO suggest something fundamental could also be simultaneously non fundamental.

Are you suggesting that, given that you're the only person talking about 'fundamentals'? I didn't think you were, but it's not always easy to tell.

O.

Raising the possibility of something therefore has implications. To meet with them with a shrugged "Dunno" looks and is evasion.
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The implications, in this context, are that the claim 'there must be an unmoved mover that caused the universe' is not a valid claim.

Which isn't a problem as I don't think we'd fit into anyone's definition of a fundamentalist.

If it speaks to you like that you need to learn to read, that's just a meaningless jumble of words.

Given that you're the person who introduced the term, the problem would seem to be yours, along with any claims you think are implicit because of it.

It suggests the possibility, yes - you'll note we're proposing that there might not be something fundamental, no bottom turtle in the tower.

Are you suggesting that, given that you're the only person talking about 'fundamentals'? I didn't think you were, but it's not always easy to tell.

O.

Raising the possibility of something therefore has implications. To meet with them wit shrugged "Dunno" looks and is evasion.

Not really sure about what you mean by a prime mover is invalid.

But surely if you are suggesting an infinite universe which defies
the laws of thermodynamics needs something to keep it in perpetual motion. In transportation the thing that keeps the wagons rolling is referred to as the Prime mover and I suppose that still has to be the case with an infinite number of wagons.

[Gordon]

If he is proposing that there may be something infinite and fundamental he can explore the implications of that

To do that he would have to be able to extrapolate to show how he has determined what these implications actually are: so he should be able to show his workings. Simply saying that something is 'infinite and fundamental' isn't enough.

E.G. The term "Fundamental " speaks to me of something basic, simple,  ultimate, basic to any heirarchy...an infinite fundamental
Speaks to me of existential Independence from anything which is existentially dependent on it.

Smashing - all you need do now explain how you've come to this conclusion as opposed to just uttering slogans.

Moreover and more problematic is that the term fundamental.suggests the non fundamental. Only a person suspending logic could IMHO suggest something fundamental could also be simultaneously non fundamental.

Who is actually suggesting this?

Raising the possibility of something therefore has implications. To meet with them with a shrugged "Dunno" looks and is evasion.

If the possibility raised seems to be little more that flag-waving, where there are no supporting arguments of any note, then not taking it seriously or saying 'Dunno' seems like a reasonable position to hold to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not shifting the burden of proof here just exploring the implications of a suggestion that there might not be a god but something else which is infinite and fundamental.

Yes you are. You accused people whose only logically consistent response to your claim “god” is “dunno” of “evasion”. By that reasoning I can accuse you of the same thing in response to my claim “pixies”. 

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not with the person receiving it. Try to remember this.

Something agnostic atheists should be doing but perhaps lack the courage because they might come up with ideas unacceptable to, as Jeremy P may put it, the philosophies people have built from their atheism.

Something agnostic a-pixieists should be doing but perhaps lack the courage because they might come up with ideas unacceptable to, as Jeremy P may put it, the philosophies people have built from their a-pixieism.

Can you see anything wrongheaded about that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you are. You accused people whose only logically consistent response to your claim “god” is “dunno” of “evasion”. By that reasoning I can accuse you of the same thing in response to my claim “pixies”. 

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not with the person receiving it. Try to remember this.

Something agnostic a-pixieists should be doing but perhaps lack the courage because they might come up with ideas unacceptable to, as Jeremy P may put it, the philosophies people have built from their a-pixieism.

Can you see anything wrongheaded about that?

WTF is going on in Saffron Walden.
It's not what I'm saying it's their response to their own suggestions. E.g. infinite fundamentals, universes within cosmoses, infinite regresses, contingent necessities.

Suggesting these without explaining or exploring these is best described in my opinion by the term "Hit and run".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

WTF is going on in Saffron Walden.
It's not what I'm saying it's their response to their own suggestions. E.g. infinite fundamentals, universes within cosmoses, infinite regresses, contingent necessities.

But you were the one who accused people of “evasion” remember?

Suggesting these without explaining or exploring these is best described in my opinion by the term "Hit and run".

No, it’s just suggesting possibilities that – for now at least – we have no means to validate or falsify. By contrast, you just reify the possibility “god” into a fact and then accuse others of “evading” the “implications” of that supposed fact. Oh and for good measure you also throw in the ad hom of intellectual cowardice for some reason known only yourself.   

[Enki]

What is it and or where is this thing that has existed infinitely, given that we seem to be surrounded by things plural that have not existed infinitely?

Here are some ideas to help you in your quest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all

Glad to be of service.

But he has given it a name whereas you have effectively declared it the "Thing which must not be named or indeed explored any further.

No I haven't. I've simply said 'I don't know' whereas Alan would simply say 'God' which has no evidentiary or explanatory value whatever. Also, on the contrary, I would encourage exploration of any source(if it exists) so either you are simply wrong or deliberately lying about my intent.

[Outrider]

Not really sure about what you mean by a prime mover is invalid.

Probably because that's not what I said. What I said was that the possibility of an infinite cosmos renders the conclusion invalid - the conclusion, in this instance, being that that there MUST be a primer mover.

But surely if you are suggesting an infinite universe which defies the laws of thermodynamics needs something to keep it in perpetual motion.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed in form or distributed. We have a tendency towards entropy, but we have instances of localised focus of energy - there is nothing about the existence of the universe which intrinsically breaches the laws of thermodynamics (except, perhaps, the fact that our laws of thermodynamics are predicated on activity within 4-dimensional space-time, and that exists within, not necessarily without, the universe.

In transportation the thing that keeps the wagons rolling is referred to as the Prime mover and I suppose that still has to be the case with an infinite number of wagons.

We aren't talking about transport, though, and if we were that allegory is more in line for intelligent falling in place of gravity than creatio ex nihilo in place of ex nihilo nihil fit.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Probably because that's not what I said. What I said was that the possibility of an infinite cosmos renders the conclusion invalid - the conclusion, in this instance, being that that there MUST be a primer mover.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed in form or distributed. We have a tendency towards entropy, but we have instances of localised focus of energy - there is nothing about the existence of the universe which intrinsically breaches the laws of thermodynamics (except, perhaps, the fact that our laws of thermodynamics are predicated on activity within 4-dimensional space-time, and that exists within, not necessarily without, the universe.

We aren't talking about transport, though, and if we were that allegory is more in line for intelligent falling in place of gravity than creatio ex nihilo in place of ex nihilo nihil fit.

O.

A perpetual motion machine which is what you seem to be suggesting is not a natural thing definitionally. We know energy is not created or destroyed but there is the issue of entropy,  useful energy and heat death. Another reason why the universe arguably is not a perpetual motion machine.
If the universe exists perpetually then what is it about the universe that keeps it going? Shouldn't it have experienced heat death sometime in the infinite past?.

There is still no answer as to why it exists rather than doesn't.

Your statement that the universe is not transportation is a denial of the principle of analogy.

You've made a lot of assertions of what can and can't be with precious little justification.IMHO..

Potential energy needs to be actualised

[torridon]

But the trouble is Torridon, God may have done.

or equally likely, it might have been Fizzwhistle Fizzyfoot, he has unlimited universe creating and law giving powers, don't you know.

People the world over have always invented imaginary beings to fill gaps in knowledge.  And just as when a regime is toppled, the power vacuum sucks in all manner of bad actors and unsavoury elements, a knowledge vacuum draws in all sorts specious superficial nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

or equally likely, it might have been Fizzwhistle Fizzyfoot, he has unlimited universe creating and law giving powers, don't you know.

People the world over have always invented imaginary beings to fill gaps in knowledge.  And just as when a regime is toppled, the power vacuum sucks in all manner of bad actors and unsavoury elements, a knowledge vacuum draws in all sorts specious superficial nonsense.

Of course you are free to try to ridicule such evidence of God by claiming it is just a "God of gaps" argument.  But conversely you are implying an atheistic belief that there must be a natural, unintended explanation to fill those gaps despite there being no feasible understanding of how those gaps could be filled.

But in essence it is not a God of gaps argument I am putting forward - it is a God of everything argument.

[Maeght]

Of course you are free to try to ridicule such evidence of God by claiming it is just a "God of gaps" argument.  But conversely you are implying an atheistic belief that there must be a natural, unintended explanation to fill those gaps despite there being no feasible understanding of how those gaps could be filled.

But in essence it is not a God of gaps argument I am putting forward - it is a God of everything argument.

No, it's a God of the gaps.