Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

I can suggest two ways. Firstly one could suggest that God is a cockamamy idea, then argue against God by suggesting alternatives as or more cockamamy, thus demonstrating that 'cockamamyness" isn't their real issue with God.

Secondly, the simulated universe theory leaves a universal creator with the attributes of God. The atheist proposer would then deny the similitude between his argument and theism.

I don't have a belief in God because of the lack of evidence that this entity exists. That combined with the fact that although I find ideas about God interesting,  I don't find the idea of God particularly important for me and that leads me to be atheistic in my attitude. So, your 'two ways' seem to have no significance as far as I'm concerned.

[Outrider]

I think you'll find I'm talking about the person who states that all arguments for God are cockamamy....and then defends Popping out of nothings, suspension of the PSR contingent necessary beings, things creating themselves, unknown unknowns, circular hierarchies, simulated universes or all of the above.

I think you'll find you think that's somehow different from what I was thinking.

One has to suspect that is not then the nature of the claim that troubles but what is being claimed.

One doesn't have to, but I'm sure that won't stop you.

You see, 'popping out of nothing', 'simulated universes' and 'circular hierarchies' are attempts to explain observed phenomena in a way consistent with those phenomena. God is an attempt to explain phenomena by making up an entirely different magical system of operations - 'things creating themselves', for instance.

That you think those are somehow categorically similar is just another instance of your attempt to reduce the argument to 'you're as bad as we are', which if nothing else is a tacit admission that you understand your own arguments are crap.

O.

[SteveH]

You claim your god exists - existence is a time based concept.

You claim your god has thoughts - thinking is a time based concept.

You claim your god takes actions - action  is a time based concept.

You claim Jesus was god - Jesus, if he existed, existed in Time.

Esattamente.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You claim your god exists - existence is a time based concept.

You claim your god has thoughts - thinking is a time based concept.

You claim your god takes actions - action  is a time based concept.

You claim Jesus was god - Jesus, if he existed, existed in Time.

You need to demonstrate that existence is a time based concept.

[Nearly Sane]

You need to demonstrate that existence is a time based concept.

To be or not to be that is the time based concept. I note you evaded the other issues. Can you explain any idea of existence without time? Your claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To be or not to be that is the time based concept. I note you evaded the other issues. Can you explain any idea of existence without time? Your claim.

Are you then, talking about the idea of existence rather than existence itself?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you then, talking about the idea of existence rather than existence itself?

I don't see the difference here

[jeremyp]

You need to demonstrate that existence is a time based concept.

OK. Let's drop that one for now. How do you answer the other three points?

[Dicky Underpants]

Scriptural speaking. No one has 'observed' God but Jesus has made him known.
God is not changed physically because he is independent of physicality

Change in God instigated by physical beings?
Because God is not subject to time we are not aware of how and when his will is instigated.

In terms of revelation it isn't as if he ever goes away.Even atheists can display reaction to God's presence and existence.

We should be careful to state that God cannot be changed.

How it looks to us is perhaps another affair, but appeal to things not looking like they seem is a trope in Everyone's argument.

Change as applied to your deity is a very imprecise word, since it is difficult to define whether you are referring to Its essential nature, or to the way It acts. Maybe you consider that Its actions do not in fact change Its nature, but if it is the God of all the Omnis, then a decision It makes should be irrevocable, since it presumably has foreseen all the consequences. Yet we see that in various parts of the Bible this is not how It is portrayed at all. Consider the notorious case of the bargaining of Abraham: (I hasten to say that I do not agree with the religious exegesis of this link)

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=57e033b2ed084f18JmltdHM9MTcxODA2NDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0yZTgyYzJjNi0wYWM3LTY5NDQtMDQ0ZS1kNjVkMGI1NzY4YTkmaW5zaWQ9NTI3MA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=2e82c2c6-0ac7-6944-044e-d65d0b5768a9&psq=abraham+bargains+with+god&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ290cXVlc3Rpb25zLm9yZy9BYnJhaGFtLVNvZG9tLUdvbW9ycmFoLmh0bWw&ntb=1

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK. Let's drop that one for now. How do you answer the other three points?

You claim your god has thoughts - thinking is a time based concept.

I’ve said God is not unconscious because he has no context in which to be unconscious. He has something like will because he is not constrained by anything else. Nor is he chaotic. So we do not know how or when God has thoughts but his agency does not resemble thoughtlessness. The words thought and will are therefore not to be anthropomorphised to the degree you are anthropomorphising them.

You claim your god takes actions - action  is a time based concept.

God is at the base of all hierarchies, He is there at each moment in time and is fundamental to each moment. Is he at the mercy then of each point in time. No, Each moment is dependent on God, so we can say God is not time dependent.

You claim Jesus was god - Jesus, if he existed, existed in Time.

[jeremyp]

Change as applied to your deity is a very imprecise word, since it is difficult to define whether you are referring to Its essential nature, or to the way It acts. Maybe you consider that Its actions do not in fact change Its nature, but if it is the God of all the Omnis, then a decision It makes should be irrevocable, since it presumably has foreseen all the consequences. Yet we see that in various parts of the Bible this is not how It is portrayed at all. Consider the notorious case of the bargaining of Abraham: (I hasten to say that I do not agree with the religious exegesis of this link)

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=57e033b2ed084f18JmltdHM9MTcxODA2NDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0yZTgyYzJjNi0wYWM3LTY5NDQtMDQ0ZS1kNjVkMGI1NzY4YTkmaW5zaWQ9NTI3MA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=2e82c2c6-0ac7-6944-044e-d65d0b5768a9&psq=abraham+bargains+with+god&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ290cXVlc3Rpb25zLm9yZy9BYnJhaGFtLVNvZG9tLUdvbW9ycmFoLmh0bWw&ntb=1

Your link is mangled. This is the one you really wanted:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Abraham-Sodom-Gomorrah.html

[Outrider]

God is at the base of all hierarchies, He is there at each moment in time and is fundamental to each moment. Is he at the mercy then of each point in time. No, Each moment is dependent on God, so we can say God is not time dependent.

So the 'all knowing' nature of God is not dependent upon time, and therefore past and future are meaningless to God and God created this world ALREADY KNOWING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. Free will is an illusion, mankind was MADE to fail, and God chose exactly this specific iteration of a reality.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Your link is mangled. This is the one you really wanted:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Abraham-Sodom-Gomorrah.html

Thanks for that. I've never quite got the best way to post links. Is there a guide here for an eejit like me?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the 'all knowing' nature of God is not dependent upon time, and therefore past and future are meaningless to God and God created this world ALREADY KNOWING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. Free will is an illusion, mankind was MADE to fail, and God chose exactly this specific iteration of a reality.

O.

He knows because he is there at each moment. It seems to me that “Will” might not in any case be a feature of the physical. But again, does physicality define reality? As I have stated God exercises something analogous to Will even though he is the reason behind physicality..

Since the movement towards or away from God is not a physical phenomenon it is hard to see how physics could influence it or determine it.

[jeremyp]

Thanks for that. I've never quite got the best way to post links. Is there a guide here for an eejit like me?

In this case, you should make sure you are on the actual page and take the link out of the address bar rather than copying it from Bing's link.

[jeremyp]

He knows because he is there at each moment. It seems to me that “Will” might not in any case be a feature of the physical. But again, does physicality define reality? As I have stated God exercises something analogous to Will even though he is the reason behind physicality..

Since the movement towards or away from God is not a physical phenomenon it is hard to see how physics could influence it or determine it.

How can God exercise anything if he is unchanging?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can God exercise anything if he is unchanging?

Exercise is merely a metaphor. What I am saying is all hierarchies start with God. He doesn’t do anything mechanically physical because mechanism is definitionally contingent.

You are taking exercise to be mechanically physical because as a physicalist you are constrained to.

I think you are viewing reality as temporal hierarchies criss crossing existential hierarchies.
I view all hierarchies as originating at the same point. An unmoving unchanging centre

[Stranger]

Exercise is merely a metaphor. What I am saying is all hierarchies start with God. He doesn’t do anything mechanically physical because mechanism is definitionally contingent.

You are taking exercise to be mechanically physical because as a physicalist you are constrained to.

I think you are viewing reality as temporal hierarchies criss crossing existential hierarchies.
I view all hierarchies as originating at the same point. An unmoving unchanging centre

Well that gave me a good laugh when I looked in for the first time in ages. Seems no matter how long a break I take, I come back to the same old meaningless gibberish as when I left. This has been done to death surely? Have you learnt nothing?

You can fantasise a 'necessary entity' or 'base of all hierarchies' (which have as many logical problems as all other attempts to explain existence) but trying to identify it with anything remotely like the Abrahamic Gods leads to so many contradictions that it just becomes comically nonsensical as this post clearly demonstrates.

Something that is unchanging cannot think, plan, create, judge, command, interact or act in any way at all. It cannot possibly be anything like the Abrahamic type Gods at all.

[Nearly Sane]

Well that gave me a good laugh when I looked in for the first time in ages. Seems no matter how long a break I take, I come back to the same old meaningless gibberish as when I left. This has been done to death surely? Have you learnt nothing?

You can fantasise a 'necessary entity' or 'base of all hierarchies' (which have as many logical problems as all other attempts to explain existence) but trying to identify it with anything remotely like the Abrahamic Gods leads to so many contradictions that it just becomes comically nonsensical as this post clearly demonstrates.

Something that is unchanging cannot think, plan, create, judge, command, interact or act in any way at all. It cannot possibly be anything like the Abrahamic type Gods at all.

Glad to see you posting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Change as applied to your deity is a very imprecise word, since it is difficult to define whether you are referring to Its essential nature, or to the way It acts. Maybe you consider that Its actions do not in fact change Its nature, but if it is the God of all the Omnis, then a decision It makes should be irrevocable, since it presumably has foreseen all the consequences. Yet we see that in various parts of the Bible this is not how It is portrayed at all. Consider the notorious case of the bargaining of Abraham: (I hasten to say that I do not agree with the religious exegesis of this link)

Not sure the God of the Omnis is a always a good match for the God of scripture and omnibenevolence is always going to present problems since it is categorically different from the other omnis.

I’m not sure omniscience necessarily suggests foresight. Does God know because he can see at one point in time with 20/20 vision or accuracy into his future., or does he know because he’s actually there at that moment...?

[Dicky Underpants]

Not sure the God of the Omnis is a always a good match for the God of scripture and omnibenevolence is always going to present problems since it is categorically different from the other omnis.

Firstly, it should be said that there is no single "God of scripture" - the one obvious thing about It is that it appears in a different guise with every prophet and evangelist. Secondly, the particular god you're inviting us to believe in (who seems to derive from philosophical speculation) appears to have no relation to the various guises of the 'divine It' in scripture at all. What has the tribal Yahweh got to do with this 'point on which all the hierarchies depend' after all? And Jesus called his god (who was also somehow himself) "Daddy" - how does that correlate with what you're saying? Jesus also apparently identified with the tribal Yahweh, since he referred to Noah, Abraham and Moses as seminal figures in God's revelation, apparently culminating with himself.

I’m not sure omniscience necessarily suggests foresight. Does God know because he can see at one point in time with 20/20 vision or accuracy into his future., or does he know because he’s actually there at that moment...?

Maybe he's learning (Process theology)

P.S. I note that our old returning friend Stranger has said something like my first paragraph too.


PPS.

This is from Milton's Paradise Lost, Book 7.
You can interpret it for us.
I don't know if it helps your cause at all:

"Boundless the Deep, because I Am who fill
Infinitude, nor vacuous the space.
Though I, uncircumscribed myself, retire,
And put not forth my goodness, which is free
To act or not, Necessity and Chance
Approach not me, and what I will is Fate."

[jeremyp]

Exercise is merely a metaphor. What I am saying is all hierarchies start with God. He doesn’t do anything mechanically physical because mechanism is definitionally contingent.

Wouldn't creating the physical universe count as doing something mechanically physical? What about preaching the Sermon on the Mount? Or is Jesus not God?

You are taking exercise to be mechanically physical because as a physicalist you are constrained to.

Actually I am not. I'm analysing the term "exercising his will" in any way you like. The point is that, if God is unchanging, hew couldn't do anything. He couldn't even decide to do anything because that would be a change in his state.

I think you are viewing reality as temporal hierarchies criss crossing existential hierarchies.
I view all hierarchies as originating at the same point. An unmoving unchanging centre

I think you should spend less time trying to put words into other people's mouths and more time critically analysing your own arguments.

[Stranger]

What's incredible is how long Vlad has been repeating this nonsense without ever addressing the counterarguments. The base of hierarchy stuff is something from Edward Feser (who really, really should know better). From 2018:

The Christian god (well, many versions of it) is supposed to plan, judge, communicate with its creation, issue commandments, perform miracles, be loving, arrange to be incarnated as a man, and so on and so on; all characteristics of a thinking mind. Feser himself argued that even a disembodied mind would need the hierarchy that this god was supposed to be the end of.

I think I was commenting on this: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - Edward C. Feser, PhD after Vlad insisted that Feser had some great arguments on YouTube.

I can't recommend that anybody actually watch it. It's a whole hour and, assuming I've got the right link, the first half is unbelievably tedious and the second is a comical attempt to do what Vlad has been trying to do ever since and associate the base of hierarchies idea with something remotely like most versions of the Christian God. I think Feser's strategy was to bore everybody into semi-consciousness in the first half so they don't notice how laughably absurd, contrived, and contradictory the second half is.

[Stranger]

Glad to see you posting.

Thanks NS. Sometimes the real world intrudes and, when I have time again, I often find a break is good.

[Outrider]

He knows because he is there at each moment. It seems to me that “Will” might not in any case be a feature of the physical. But again, does physicality define reality? As I have stated God exercises something analogous to Will even though he is the reason behind physicality.

Completely missing the point. We have no free will in this depiction of God - our 'futures' are already mapped out, God knows the history of reality from start to finish, it's already established for God who exists in each moment. So all the evils, all the pain, all the destruction, all are God's deliberate choice.

Since the movement towards or away from God is not a physical phenomenon it is hard to see how physics could influence it or determine it.

Given that we are physical, we exist in time and space that God has created in its entirety, we are entirely the creation of God. There is no movement towards or away from anything that God hasn't chosen.

O.