Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Show your working ....

Well, exactly.

Alan, going back to #15557, it's obvious that you think you can make a logical argument, so how about setting it all out formally: give a list of your premises, any additional steps and conclusions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have the free will to investigate and to try to be objective.

Can you explain how you would propose to get from faith to objective please?

Thanks.

[Alan Burns]

Assertion alert !

Show your working ....

In not God, then what is the source of reality?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Can you explain how you would propose to get from faith to objective please?

Thanks.

My objectivity leads me to the conclusion that God is the only possible explanation for my existence.  For the full detail, see my previous posts.

[ippy]

My objectivity leads me to the conclusion that God is the only possible explanation for my existence.  For the full detail, see my previous posts.

Yes we got that, now how about explaining the details, naturally without any of the usual, unsupportable assertions you're so fond of giving us?

Try to make this an assertion free zone Alan, even though I know it's difficult for you.

ippy

[Stranger]

[If] not God, then what is the source of reality?

What is the source of god?

A reality with a god is exactly as mysterious as one without.

[wigginhall]

What is the source of god?

A reality with a god is exactly as mysterious as one without.

Well, AB keeps telling us that God is beyond understanding, so a universe with God at the top is very mysterious.   There may be ways of grappling with the origins of the universe, but not with God.   So it's a hymn to ignorance, it rejoices in ignorance.   

[Stranger]

My objectivity leads me to the conclusion that God is the only possible explanation for my existence.  For the full detail, see my previous posts.

Your previous posts were full of unsupported assertions, circular reasoning and personal incredulity.

How about you do as I suggested in #15652 and formally set out what you think your logical argument is: give a list of your premises, any additional steps and conclusions?

[torridon]

Show your working ....

In not God, then what is the source of reality?

That's not showing your working.  You need to establish how you get from the observation that reality exists, to the proposition that it was created by a hyper intelligent triple-omni human-like being working in complete isolation in some other invisible and inaccessible realm of reality.  It's quite a big ask to just swallow all that without murmur.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My objectivity leads me to the conclusion that God is the only possible explanation for my existence.

You’re not getting it still. You tell us that you know you’re right about your various claims because that’s your "faith". Anyone can have faith in anything that takes their fancy. It is though subjective – and there’s no logical path to the objective.

If on the other hand you don’t rely on personal faith for you beliefs, then you should be able to set out your objective reasoning for others to consider.

For the full detail, see my previous posts.

There’s no detail in your previous posts. So far, all you’ve posted is a mix of assertions and logical fallacies. Neither of these things help you though if you want anyone else to take your claims seriously.

[BeRational]

My objectivity leads me to the conclusion that God is the only possible explanation for my existence.  For the full detail, see my previous posts.

My objectivity leads me to the conclusion that god cannot be a possible explanation for my existence.

What a pickle.

I wonder how we could possibly address this problem?

[Alan Burns]

What is the source of god?

My understanding is that God is the definitive source of everything.  You can't get reality sourced from nothing.

[BeRational]

My understanding is that God is the definitive source of everything.  You can't get reality source from nothing.

My understanding is that god is NOT the source of anything.

You can only get reality without a god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My understanding is that God is the definitive source of everything.

“Everything” except presumably God himself.

And there’s you problem. Effectively you’re saying, “I can’t imagine how the universe began, therefore God did it” as if the conjecture “God” both answers the question and is in some way exempt from the same question.

All you’ve done here is to attach the problem to your undefined conjecture. 

You can't get reality source from nothing.

Actually you arguably can get the reality of information “from nothing” but, either way, if you think “God” is reality then how did He come from nothing?

[ekim]

So, all that is needed now is a definition of God.

[Alan Burns]

In not God, then what is the source of reality?


That's not showing your working.  You need to establish how you get from the observation that reality exists, to the proposition that it was created by a hyper intelligent triple-omni human-like being working in complete isolation in some other invisible and inaccessible realm of reality.  It's quite a big ask to just swallow all that without murmur.

My logic boils down to the impossibility of conscious awareness arising from a chaotic material universe without God's intervention.  I know you disagree with this conclusion, but there is no material definition for what comprises conscious awareness and how it can be generated from purely material entities.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

“Everything” except presumably God himself.

And there’s you problem. Effectively you’re saying, “I can’t imagine how the universe began, therefore God did it” as if the conjecture “God” both answers the question and is in some way exempt from the same question.

All you’ve done here is to attach the problem to your undefined conjecture. 

Actually you arguably can get the reality of information “from nothing” but, either way, if you think “God” is reality then how did He come from nothing?

But you are implying that any source has itself to have a source.  Can you not see the error in this?  There has to be an ultimate source, and I call this source God.

[BeRational]

But you are implying that any source has itself to have a source.  Can you not see the error in this?  There has to be an ultimate source, and I call this source God.

But you do more than that. You think this god has intention and is the Christian god.

Why can this source not just be something else?

How do you know there has to be an ultimate source?

[Stranger]

My logic boils down to the impossibility of conscious awareness arising from a chaotic material universe without God's intervention.  I know you disagree with this conclusion, but there is no material definition for what comprises conscious awareness and how it can be generated from purely material entities.

Absolutely textbook argument from ignorance fallacy.

[Stranger]

But you are implying that any source has itself to have a source.  Can you not see the error in this?  There has to be an ultimate source, and I call this source God.

This seems totally arbitrary, with no underlying logic at all. Questions abound.

How do you know that a "source" is needed?
How are you defining "source" in this context?
How do you know that there is only one "ultimate source"?
How do you connect any "ultimate source" to anything resembling the Christian god?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My logic boils down to the impossibility of conscious awareness arising from a chaotic material universe without God's intervention.

There’s no logic at all – just assertion. If you think “conscious awareness” is impossible by natural means rather than just a very complicated emergent property, then you need to explain why. And no – “But it looks really hard to me” isn’t an explanation at all.

I know you disagree with this conclusion,…

Wrong again. People disagree with the your premise (the “impossible” bit). Your conclusion on the other hand ("God") is not even wrong. 

…but there is no material definition for what comprises conscious awareness and how it can be generated from purely material entities.

Actually to a large extent there is, but even if that wasn’t the case it’s as reasonable to infer emergence as the working explanation for imperfectly understood consciousness as it is to infer emergent wetness as the explanation for imperfectly understood fluid dynamics.

That you always run away from this doesn’t get you off the hook here. All you have in the locker is, “consciousness looks really hard to me, therefore God”. There’s no understanding of what neuroscience actually tells us, no logic, no evidence, no anything to deflect from emergence being the most robust working explanation we have.

[Enki]

My understanding is that God is the definitive source of everything.  You can't get reality sourced from nothing.

I assume that whatever you believe your God to be, He is something rather than nothing. I assume that whatever you have decided is your idea of reality, it is something rather than nothing. So, if you make the statement that 'you can't get reality sourced from nothing' then surely the same must apply to your God. Alternatively, if you decide your God is outside of your idea of sourcing something from nothing, then anyone can apply the same argument to 'reality' whatever that may be(as long as it is something). It seems to me that you are in somewhat of a cleft stick situation here. My position is somewhat easier because whatever reality is, at least I don't have to bother about explaining the middle man(i.e. God) at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But you are implying that any source has itself to have a source.  Can you not see the error in this?  There has to be an ultimate source, and I call this source God.

So many assumptions, so little logic.

Why do you think there has to be “an ultimate source”?

Why do you think that “the universe” necessarily had to begin?

Why do you think that it didn’t begin itself?

Why do you thin that there had to be a causeless cause outside of the universe?

How would you know that that cause didn’t itself have a different cause in the background?

How would this “cause” even know that?

See, essentially your “argument” here is, “it’s magic”. And that answers nothing – it's the giving up on reason and enquiry in favour of a tawdry party trick of an answer. Fortunately for all of us, people who have argued as you do in the past – for example for Thor as the cause of thunder – have been ignored while others carried on looking. And that in essence is why people still do science rather than rely on clerics for the answers.

[wigginhall]

I assume that whatever you believe your God to be, He is something rather than nothing. I assume that whatever you have decided is your idea of reality, it is something rather than nothing. So, if you make the statement that 'you can't get reality sourced from nothing' then surely the same must apply to your God. Alternatively, if you decide your God is outside of your idea of sourcing something from nothing, then anyone can apply the same argument to 'reality' whatever that may be(as long as it is something). It seems to me that you are in somewhat of a cleft stick situation here. My position is somewhat easier because whatever reality is, at least I don't have to bother about explaining the middle man(i.e. God) at all.

Yes, the whole rigmarole from AB is catastrophic really, except he can't see it.  He clings blindly to his assertions and self-defeating statements.   I wonder if he represents the intellectual collapse of Christianity?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Yes, the whole rigmarole from AB is catastrophic really, except he can't see it.  He clings blindly to his assertions and self-defeating statements.   I wonder if he represents the intellectual collapse of Christianity?

Quite possibly - AB is to reason what Trump is to politics: collapse.