Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I am a single entity of perception.  There is only one "me".

You're a 'person', Alan. Try saying 'I am a person' instead of 'I am a single entity of perception' - you'll sound more human.

[Alan Burns]

You're a 'person', Alan. Try saying 'I am a person' instead of 'I am a single entity of perception' - you'll sound more human.

Yes, I am a person with a God given personality which manifests in the way I use my gift of free will to choose what I say, think or do.
The material based alternative would render me to be a biological robot entirely driven by predefined material reactions beyond my conscious control with no will of my own and with no need for conscious awareness.

Do you honestly believe that you, your friends and family are all nothing more than a collection reconstituted star debris undergoing unavoidable material reactions?

[jeremyp]

Do you honestly believe that you, your friends and family are all nothing more than a collection reconstituted star debris undergoing unavoidable material reactions?

Yes. That's about the size of it. But I think you do the Universe and nature a huge disservice by putting it in such disparaging terms.

[Gordon]

Do you honestly believe that you, your friends and family are all nothing more than a collection reconstituted star debris undergoing unavoidable material reactions?

Yep.

[Alan Burns]

Yes. That's about the size of it. But I think you do the Universe and nature a huge disservice by putting it in such disparaging terms.

You do God a disservice in presuming the universe, nature and yourself came into existence from nothing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am a single entity of perception.  There is only one "me".

That’s like a termites’ nest saying, “I am a single entity of termites’ nest-ness” too. Both of you would be wrong though because both of you actually consist of multiple interacting parts from which the qualitatively different whole has emerged.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, I am a person with a God given personality which manifests in the way I use my gift of free will to choose what I say, think or do.

Evidence- and reason-denying blind faith claims noted.

The material based alternative would render me to be a biological robot entirely driven by predefined material reactions beyond my conscious control with no will of my own and with no need for conscious awareness.

Argumentum ad consequentium fallacy. Again.

Do you honestly believe that you, your friends and family are all nothing more than a collection reconstituted star debris undergoing unavoidable material reactions?

Leaving aside your pejorative language to poison the well (yet another fallacy), broadly yes. That’s not to so say though of course that people can’t experience life as if they had the logically impossible version of “free” will you keep peddling here like a dog howling at the moon.

[Gordon]

You do God a disservice in presuming the universe, nature and yourself came into existence from nothing.

You're rather begging the question there, yet again: so where did 'God' come from then (existence-wise)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You do God a disservice in presuming the universe, nature and yourself came into existence from nothing.

In that case, by the same "reasoning" you do leprechauns a disservice by presuming that rainbows get there naturally.   

[torridon]

I am a single entity of perception.  There is only one "me".

Likewise the cat that is stalking my garden birds is a single entity of perception.  Like me, it has two eyes, and yet it experiences a unity of visual experience.  Like me, it has two ears, and yet it experiences a unity of auditory experience.  That's what brains evolved to do, eons ago, to orchestrate and synthesise the different sensory modalities into a singular unified stream of experience. It's not magic, it's the awesome power of brains that all this goes on subliminally without our ever appreciating it.

[Alan Burns]

You're rather begging the question there, yet again: so where did 'God' come from then (existence-wise)?

God is the ultimate source of all that exists.
If there was no ultimate source, nothing would exist.

[Gordon]

God is the ultimate source of all that exists.
If there was no ultimate source, nothing would exist.

How convenient!

Seems like this 'God' exists solely because you want/need it to, so as to fit your personal preferences, unless of course you can demonstrate on what basis this 'God' preceded the existence of anything else (including your personal preferences).

Sounds like theobollocks to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

God is the ultimate source of all that exists.

Blind faith claim

If there was no ultimate source, nothing would exist.

The non sequitur fallacy. You have no reasoning at all to justify that claim, and in any case you’ve just landed yourself with the problem of how this supposed god came to exist too. How much of this relentless fuckwittedness do you expect people here to tolerate?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Blind faith claim

The non sequitur fallacy. You have no reasoning at all to justify that claim, and in any case you’ve just landed yourself with the problem of how this supposed god came to exist too. How much of this relentless fuckwittedness do you expect people here to tolerate?   

So do you honestly believe that everything which exists came into existence from nothing?

The only explanation for anything to come into existence is for an ultimate source which exists outside the time dimension of our material universe.  Prof Stephen Hawkin used his intimate knowledge of physics to show that time as we know it began with the big bang creation of our universe, so there is no such thing as "before the big bang" -  only "outside the big bang".

[Steve H]

So do you honestly believe that everything which exists came into existence from nothing?

The only explanation for anything to come into existence is for an ultimate source which exists outside the time dimension of our material universe.  Prof Stephen Hawkin used his intimate knowledge of physics to show that time as we know it began with the big bang creation of our universe, so there is no such thing as "before the big bang" -  only "outside the big bang".

But even if that's true, a first cause of all that exists is rather a long way from the creating, sustaining, loving, judging God pf the bible.

[torridon]

God is the ultimate source of all that exists.
If there was no ultimate source, nothing would exist.

There is no evidence to support this claim. The origins of the universe are still something of a mystery, this is basically a knowledge gap you are trying to squeeze your god into.  Not convincing, really, the better approach is to start from the evidence and work up, rather than start with a conclusion and trying to retrofit evidence into it.

[Stranger]

Because I thought about it, and came to a logical conclusion.

Why have you never once posted any of this logic, then? Why the endless stream of gibberish and fallacies?

There is no understandable mechanism or functionality which shows how conscious awareness works.  Trying to label it as an emergent property offers no explanation for what comprises our conscious awareness or how it works.  The problem you have is that conscious awareness requires a single recipient for the information which exists in the material brain, but there is no material definition or mechanism for this single recipient - because it is your human soul.

FALLACY: Argument from ignorance.
FALLACY: Argument by assertion.

The material based alternative would render me to be a biological robot entirely driven by predefined material reactions beyond my conscious control with no will of my own and with no need for conscious awareness.

Do you honestly believe that you, your friends and family are all nothing more than a collection reconstituted star debris undergoing unavoidable material reactions?

FALLACY: Appeal to consequences.

So do you honestly believe that everything which exists came into existence from nothing?

What makes you think there was any 'coming into' existence?

The only explanation for anything to come into existence is for an ultimate source which exists outside the time dimension of our material universe.

FALLACY: Argument by assertion.

Prof Stephen Hawkin used his intimate knowledge of physics to show that time as we know it began with the big bang creation of our universe, so there is no such thing as "before the big bang" -  only "outside the big bang".

Stephen Hawking come up with two hypotheses, the first of which involved time actually becoming space-like, in the very early universe, so the space-time would be neatly rounded off at the big bang with a region of four-dimensional space. The final one, involved the holographic principle and led to a somewhat constrained version of eternal inflation.

"Outside the big bang" appears to be just another of your little fantasies.

Now, where is the logic you've now told us again that you have but have never posted?

[Maeght]

So do you honestly believe that everything which exists came into existence from nothing?

The only explanation for anything to come into existence is for an ultimate source which exists outside the time dimension of our material universe.  Prof Stephen Hawkin used his intimate knowledge of physics to show that time as we know it began with the big bang creation of our universe, so there is no such thing as "before the big bang" -  only "outside the big bang".

Is "outside the big bang" a direct quote? If so, could you show where from the give context please.

Hawking was an atheist of course.

'Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist.'

[Outrider]

Do tell.

I just did.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

[quot.e author=Outrider link=topic=10333.msg900599#msg900599 date=1737451074]
I just did.

O.
[/quote]I must have missed the justification for your assertions

[Outrider]

I must have missed the justification for your assertions

I 'asserted' how I view something? That's an interesting take.

Given that my comment was made in direct opposition to an assertion, i find it somewhat telling that you've jumped all over my point, but AB is apparently free to assert that consciousness has to be external with impunity...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So do you honestly believe that everything which exists came into existence from nothing?

I’ve made such claim. Nor do I know whether “everything that exists” needs to have “come into existence” at all. Nor do you. 

The only explanation for anything to come into existence is for an ultimate source which exists outside the time dimension of our material universe.

The ontological arguments relies on at least three fallacies. As you’re indifferent to the festival of fallacies you eructate here so often, there’s no point in explaining them to you yet again. I’ll settle instead therefore for this: utter bollocks.   

Prof Stephen Hawkin used his intimate knowledge of physics to show that time as we know it began with the big bang creation of our universe, so there is no such thing as "before the big bang" -  only "outside the big bang".

It’s “Hawking”, and he (who was an atheist by the way) was merely explaining that “before” is a time-dependent term that has no meaning therefore if you’re trying to say “before time”. What he categorically wasn’t doing though was opening the door to a god of the gaps, magic man argument as you are. Just to warn you: of the panoply of hopelessly wrong arguments you attempt to justify your claim “god”, the ontological argument is arguably the weakest of the lot.

By all means try at least to come up with an argument that isn’t always dead on arrival if you want to though – perhaps using some of those (in)famous “sound reasons” you claim to have but never manage actually to produce? 

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

I’ve made such claim.

I think you missed out a 'no"

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think you missed out a 'no"

I did indeed. Thank you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

 

The ontological arguments relies on at least three fallacies.

Good evening sir,
I've pulled you over tonight because we are doing spotchecks on bullshitting in your area.

Could you please blow into this and give us the three fallacies?