Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

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.

One of those may not be demonstrated, Alan, and the other definitely isn't.

I'll leave you to guess which is which

[Alan Burns]

One of those may not be demonstrated, Alan, and the other definitely isn't.

I'll leave you to guess which is which

So when you meet up with your Creator, you can say that He need not have bothered - it would have all happened anyway if He just left the big cloud of gas to do its own thing. 

[Leonard James]

So when you meet up with your Creator, you can say that He need not have bothered - it would have all happened anyway if He just left the big cloud of gas to do its own thing. 

Of course it would ... it's a natural property of matter to behave in a certain manner, it needs no supernatural force to cause it to.

And that is precisely what it did.

[Shaker]

So when you meet up with your Creator

I don't buy a word of it, Al.

you can say that He need not have bothered - it would have all happened anyway if He just left the big cloud of gas to do its own thing. 

Exactly so:

These are some of the things that hydrogen atoms do given fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution. It has the sound of epic myth, but it is simply a description of the evolution of the cosmos as revealed by science in our time. And we, we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos, we have begun at least to wonder about our origins -- star stuff contemplating the stars, organized collections of ten billion billion billion atoms, contemplating the evolution of nature, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet earth, and perhaps throughout the cosmos.

- Carl Sagan

[Rhiannon]

So when you meet up with your Creator, you can say that He need not have bothered - it would have all happened anyway if He just left the big cloud of gas to do its own thing. 

Do you not see that a kind universe is one where the cloud of gas does its thing? There's nothing kind or just in a mind that creates the suffering of the innocent and blameless.

[Shaker]

Do you not see that a kind universe is one where the cloud of gas does its thing? There's nothing kind or just in a mind that creates the suffering of the innocent and blameless.

... which suffering that mind itself either (a) created or (b) didn't create and wanted to stop but couldn't or (c) didn't create and didn't want to stop either.

So as I see it, the personalistic monotheist has to choose between ignorance (thick as pigshit god), impotence (means well and wants to do better but can't god, i.e. amiable duffer) and sadism (Nazi psychopath god). If there are other options I've missed, I'd be delighted to hear of them yet again in order to dismiss them with relentless and remorseless logic yet again. Because believe me, I have heard it all before.

Take your pick.

[Alan Burns]

I don't buy a word of it, Al.
Exactly so: - Carl Sagan

But Carl Sagan would not have been able to analyse his origins in such detail without the free thought processes driven by his God given soul.  Atoms and molecules just react - they do not perceive - they are incapable of generating conscious awareness because it is impossible to define in material terms.

[Shaker]

But Carl Sagan would not have been able to analyse his origins in such detail without the free thought processes driven by his God given soul.

Assertatron Assertatron Assertraton.

It's a lazy boilerplate response on my part, of course, but then so was yours.

[Gordon]

But Carl Sagan would not have been able to analyse his origins in such detail without the free thought processes driven by his God given soul.  Atoms and molecules just react - they do not perceive - they are incapable of generating conscious awareness because it is impossible to define in material terms.

In addition to your usual floundering about in an argument from personal incredulity I've begun to realise that you also constantly employ a fallacious argument from authority: where you are your own authority!

You've created this bizarrely structured narrative around souls, atoms, molecules and free will etc - decided this is all absolutely true, and then stick rigidly to it as if it were somehow mandated.

You are a thoughtful, civil and intelligent guy, Alan, but you seem to be overwhelmed by fallacies.

[Shaker]

You are a thoughtful, civil and intelligent guy, Alan, but you seem to be overwhelmed by fallacies.

I know of a few of them like that ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

argument from personal incredulity 
a fallacious argument from authority:
 overwhelmed by fallacies.

Hang on Gordy, just getting my I spy book of Gordonisms.

500 points.

[Alan Burns]

In addition to your usual floundering about in an argument from personal incredulity I've begun to realise that you also constantly employ a fallacious argument from authority: where you are your own authority!

You've created this bizarrely structured narrative around souls, atoms, molecules and free will etc - decided this is all absolutely true, and then stick rigidly to it as if it were somehow mandated.

You are a thoughtful, civil and intelligent guy, Alan, but you seem to be overwhelmed by fallacies.

Most of what are being labelled as assertions or fallacies came into my mind during prayer or while attending holy Mass, so I look upon them as revelations.  And I have found nothing in science or philosophical writings to seriously challenge these "assertions".

[Alan Burns]

Do you not see that a kind universe is one where the cloud of gas does its thing? There's nothing kind or just in a mind that creates the suffering of the innocent and blameless.

But the gospels depict a God who wants to help those who suffer.  I cannot accept that God is the cause of human suffering.  There are many factors involved which are simply beyond human understanding.  I just put my faith in God's love.

[Shaker]

But the gospels depict a God who wants to help those who suffer.

That would be a piece of piss for a traditional omni god, wouldn't it Alan?

I cannot accept that God is the cause of human suffering.

Why not? Whose problem is that?

There are many factors involved which ase simply beyond human understanding.  I just put my faith in God's love.

Cop-out.

[Alan Burns]

That would be a piece of piss for a traditional omni god, wouldn't it Alan?Why not?

But the bible indicates that we are God's presence on this earth - we are His hands, His feet, His eyes and His mouth.   In order for God's will to be done on this earth, we need to allow God to work through us.  And we are assured that we will be given the strength to do His will if we put our trust in Him.

[Shaker]

But the bible indicates that we are God's presence on this earth - we are His hands, His feet, His eyes and His mouth. In order for God's will to be done on this earth, we need to allow God to work through us.  And we are assured that we will be given the strength to do His will if we put our trust in Him.

Sounds like the job delegation of what I call the incredible shrinking god, Alan.

How do you distinguish between what you call the actions of a god using humans as its hands, feet, eyes and mouth and just humans with no god doing human things?

Good luck - you've never told me me before, Alan

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sounds like the job delegation of what I call the incredible shrinking god

Ching.........1000 points.

[Shaker]

Where's the rest of my post, Vlad?

[Rhiannon]

But the bible indicates that we are God's presence on this earth - we are His hands, His feet, His eyes and His mouth.   In order for God's will to be done on this earth, we need to allow God to work through us.  And we are assured that we will be given the strength to do His will if we put our trust in Him.

Even if this were right, what you've got is a fallible, weak human god substitute that digs people out of post-earthquake rubble and tries to stop babies dying because of cancer. So let's go back a step to why you think it is logical that a loving God created/allows this stuff in the first place.

[Shaker]

That's the step that no monotheist takes, Rhi.

[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.

Why would there be any need to prove that this idea Alan calls god, did or didn't do anything?

The maths of Einstine has risen to every challenge so far, so there's good reason to take his well thought out reasoning, whilst religiosos are only able to assert their unfounded superstitious myths.

Oh wow what a difficult choice to make, one idea backed up by maths and the other idea is backed up superstitious myths, now let me think this is really difficult ummmm?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's the step that no monotheist takes, Rhi.

But you will get more information out of a monotheist than a pagan.
What Rhiannon omits is that if God does not exist and her gods do they are responsible for what she accuses God of.

[Rhiannon]

But you will get more information out of a monotheist than a pagan.
What Rhiannon omits is that if God does not exist and her gods do they are responsible for what she accuses God of.

Do you actually have the first idea what I believe?

[Shaker]

But you will get more information out of a monotheist than a pagan.

You have a typically Vladdish definition of the concept of information, I see.

[Leonard James]

Even if this were right, what you've got is a fallible, weak human god substitute that digs people out of post-earthquake rubble and tries to stop babies dying because of cancer. So let's go back a step to why you think it is logical that a loving God created/allows this stuff in the first place.

Spot on, Rhi! Any honest person can see that it ISN'T logical, but you are talking to indoctrinated robots who can't think outside their programming.