Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Certainly your world view includes a hell of a lot of things which according to you are illusions. In other words cover for you not being able to explain it.

So not having an explanation for things that aren't demonstrably true or real is 'an excuse for not being able to explain it' (despite the fact that 'it' might not be real), but having an explanation that relies on things we have no reason to think are real is absolutely fine.

The fact remains you have no explanatory for existence and the maintenance of existence on the universal scale.........or appear to have any intention of wanting one or acknowledging  one.

Under those circumstances 'I don't know' is preferable to the assertion 'God did it', surely?

O.

[Outrider]

non sequitur

You do know that doesn't just mean 'I don't like your answer', right.

How is pointing out that the world is getting by perfectly well without gods somehow not related to your comment that 'the world would be a bit stymied if there were no God'?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So not having an explanation for things that aren't demonstrably true or real is 'an excuse for not being able to explain it' (despite the fact that 'it' might not be real), but having an explanation that relies on things we have no reason to think are real is absolutely fine.

Under those circumstances 'I don't know' is preferable to the assertion 'God did it', surely?

O.

Saying I don't know fine
Calling something an. Illusion because it doesn't fit your scheme not ok..

[Outrider]

Saying I don't know fine. Calling something an. Illusion because it doesn't fit your scheme not ok..

How about calling it an illusion because there's no evidence that it's there, but some people think it's there anyway? Rainbows are an illusion, mirages are an illusion, illusions aren't intrinsically a 'bad' thing, it's just a description of one of the ways in which our understanding of reality can be deceived.

O.

[ippy]

Not when all are chosen and treated and loved equally. Love not only covers many sins it prevents us from creating them.
Wouldn't you like to be free of petty jealousies and squabbles?

2

ippy

[ippy]

Read up to page 253 and the WUM factor was definitely alive.
What I do not understand is why people calling themselves believers bite?

Especially, when a couple of them wouldn't know the contents of a bible if it suddenly started talking the Words from the pages.
I believe that believers are getting bored with the digs and smirks with the remarks of being delusional.


Keys from backs removed!

0

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do know that doesn't just mean 'I don't like your answer', right.

How is pointing out that the world is getting by perfectly well without gods somehow not related to your comment that 'the world would be a bit stymied if there were no God'?

O.

The world as you originally stated can appear to be getting on ok without God but as Sagan pointed out We have to cognise that the universe IS rather than isn't in other words there is the small matter if it,s providence and it,s maintenance..............not to mention its governance.

[Outrider]

The world as you originally stated can appear to be getting on ok without God but as Sagan pointed out We have to cognise that the universe IS rather than isn't in other words there is the small matter if it,s providence and it,s maintenance..............not to mention its governance.

And, as Sagan equally pointed out, it makes no sense to pray to gravity.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And, as Sagan equally pointed out, it makes no sense to pray to gravity.

O.

Eh?

[Outrider]

Eh?

Well, I presumed - it wasn't that clear - that you were suggesting the presence of the universe requires an explanation, and that the perceived fit of reality for life implies design and maintenance.

Sagan pointed out that the apparent causes of the universe were natural laws, and that although we have a tendency to react with worship, it makes no sense to presume that there is anything there to worship.

O.

[ippy]

Don't  you mean?

еее=====O

🔑

No 0, or zero if you like.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I presumed - it wasn't that clear - that you were suggesting the presence of the universe requires an explanation, and that the perceived fit of reality for life implies design and maintenance.

Sagan pointed out that the apparent causes of the universe were natural laws, and that although we have a tendency to react with worship, it makes no sense to presume that there is anything there to worship.

O.

Can gravity be the cause of the universe, it,s maintenance or its governance..........I thought it was the Big Bang after all.

Also what are you meaning by natural laws since their naturalness might be merely being established by you by circular argument.

[Alan Burns]

Sagan pointed out that the apparent causes of the universe were natural laws,

Laws do no cause anything.  They just define the consequeces to events.

[Outrider]

Can gravity be the cause of the universe, it,s maintenance or its governance..........I thought it was the Big Bang after all.

My take on it was that he was suggesting natural laws in general, not specifically gravity, but was using something that people would immediately grasp.

Also what are you meaning by natural laws since their naturalness might be merely being established by you by circular argument.

I'm not establishing what causes natural laws at all - I'm making no presumptions other than that they are there. They are the apparent cause of the universe, given that they explain it as it stands. What explains the natural laws? Who knows, at this time, other natural laws seems the most likely explanation to me, certainly that's what we continue to look for, and what we have a methodology for reviewing.

O.

[Outrider]

Laws do no cause anything.  They just define the consequeces to events.

I'm lost as to the distinction you're trying to make - how does being the defining conditions and mechanism that result in a particular outcome not constitute being its cause?

O.

[Alan Burns]

I'm lost as to the distinction you're trying to make - how does being the defining conditions and mechanism that result in a particular outcome not constitute being its cause?

O.

For example, the law of gravity is just a definition of the value of an attractive force which exists between two material objects.  It does not define the cause of the force. 

Nor does it define what brought the two objects to be where they are.

[Outrider]

For example, the law of gravity is just a definition of the value of an attractive force which exists between two material objects.  It does not define the cause of the force.

Well, to be particular, there is no force - gravitation is a distortion of space-time, but ignoring that for a moment... The natural law is gravity. The 'Law of Gravity' is a product of science that describes that natural law in a way that we understand, but without the Law of Gravity there would still be gravity.

Nor does it define what brought the two objects to be where they are.

Similarly there are natural laws which we have attempted to define and quantify with scientific Laws and hypotheses, but those are our way of understanding those laws which existed before humanity came around. It is those laws that have led to reality, as we understand it, being as it is.

O.

[ippy]

For example, the law of gravity is just a definition of the value of an attractive force which exists between two material objects.  It does not define the cause of the force. 

Nor does it define what brought the two objects to be where they are.

Last night on BBC Channel 4 TV at 2100 14/12/15, a pretty god biography of Einstine and his works, gravity isn't quite what you seem to be thinking it is, (An iPlayer job for you Alan), don't let it worry you if you don't like the info just switch your brain off again and think to yourself, silly man that Einstine, what did he know, godidit.

Don't tell me he was inspired by whatever it is you think this god thing is you're always wittering on about, no doubt you will?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They are the apparent cause of the universe, given that they explain it as it stands.

O.

I can't quite believe that someone of your calibre is actually seriously suggesting that that is necessarily so.

[Outrider]

Last night on BBC Channel 4 TV at 2100 14/12/15, a pretty god biography of Einstine and his works, gravity isn't quite what you seem to be thinking it is, (An iPlayer job for you Alan), don't let it worry you if you don't like the info just switch your brain off again and think to yourself, silly man that Einstine, what did he know, godidit.

Don't tell me he was inspired by whatever it is you think this god thing is you're always wittering on about, no doubt you will?

ippy

Seems a little churlish, Ippy - I don't see that Alan's in any way denying the existence of gravity, or the formulation of the Law of Gravitation. Many people were taught to think of gravity as a force - I was during my schooling - and didn't get into space-time curvature until at least A-Level physics, by which time many people have stopped.

If he thinks - as I suspect he does - that the Law of Gravitation describes a natural law that God has implemented there's nothing in science to disprove that. There's nothing in science to validate it, either, but that's not as far as I can see Alan's claim.

O.

[Outrider]

I can't quite believe that someone of your calibre is actually seriously suggesting that that is necessarily so.

Not necessarily so, I cannot deduce that it must be that way, but from the available evidence it seems the most likely explanation to me. Of course, if you have other evidence or methodologies that come to different conclusions, or reasoning that undermines that conclusion feel free to offer it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not necessarily so, I cannot deduce that it must be that way, but from the available evidence it seems the most likely explanation to me. Of course, if you have other evidence or methodologies that come to different conclusions, or reasoning that undermines that conclusion feel free to offer it.

O.

But what you are alluding to is a steady state model of the universe. That of course defies the evidence.Im happy to be the one to out you as the cosmic equivalent of a flat earthier.

[Outrider]

But what you are alluding to is a steady state model of the universe. That of course defies the evidence.Im happy to be the one to out you as the cosmic equivalent of a flat earthier.

I fail to see how you get the idea that 'the universe as we understand it is the result of the interaction of identified natural laws' equates to 'the universe therefore has always been in its current state', but just to disabuse you of the notion, it neither implies that, results in that conclusion, nor does that conclusion represent my understanding.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I fail to see how you get the idea that 'the universe as we understand it is the result of the interaction of identified natural laws' equates to 'the universe therefore has always been in its current state', but just to disabuse you of the notion, it neither implies that, results in that conclusion, nor does that conclusion represent my understanding.

O.

can I suggest the Black and decker trimmer for that hedge?

[Alan Burns]

Similarly there are natural laws which we have attempted to define and quantify with scientific Laws and hypotheses, but those are our way of understanding those laws which existed before humanity came around. It is those laws that have led to reality, as we understand it, being as it is.

O.

As I have said on a previous thread, natural laws are not broken or overidden, but they can be used and manipulated by acts of free will - as aptly demonstrated in both human creativity and God's creativity.