Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

The onus is on the materialists to show how the conscious contemplation of such a thought can possibly be generated from deterministic electro chemical activity alone.

No, you made a claim and need to back it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, that just shifts the goal posts to 'where did Joe Bloggs' come from.  That's not an explanation.

Since there are only three possible answers
The house popped out of nowhere
The house was built
The house has been there eternally

The same answers go for Joe Bloggs

He either popped out of nowhere
He was made
Joe Bloggs has been there eternally

The same answers apply to anything...God, the universe or anything

Now an infinite regression suggests that that from which an endless regression is derived is eternal

[torridon]

But if the ultimate source of creation has the means to share this creative ability, it allows us to realise just what an amazing gift we have been blessed with.  It brings to mind the awesome opening words of John's gospel: "In the beginning was the word ...."  implying that the beginning was not a material entity, but simply a "will" which brought about everything.

That's your same approach as with free will - Will is something that requires no explanation, it just is.

I don't buy that in terms of human volition - if I form a desire there is always a reason for it, some or other need that requires satisfying. I think you are just building a magic black box around 'will' so that it does not appear to require any explanation.

Now you are doing just the same with some posited first cause 'Will'.  Why would we be expected to just accept that this Will exists out of nowhere requiring no reason for it.   This sort of thinking is suitable for those who accept things on face value without asking awkward questions.

[Nearly Sane]

It just goes to show that there must be more to life than merely the deterministic electro chemical activity in our physical brains.

That's a non sequitur to my post, and a mere repetition of your assertion. As has been pointed out many times simply using the word physical here adds nothing, ignores the logic of causes and means you imply the existence of something other than the physical with no evidence for it.

[SusanDoris]

Why do you consider the concept of an ultimate source of all existence to be illogical or circular?  I freely admit that our human minds can't cope with thinking about either an ultimate source or an infinite regression as a reality.  But the reality is that I have come into existence, and the only way I can cope with this reality is to presume that there is an ultimate creator of all existence, even though I can't fully understand it within the limitations of my own mind.

Well, that's your personal problem. If you, as you evidently do, persist in believing in the existence of a soul - which is a comfort blanket, a crutch, and an extremely weak and dodgy one too, then you're stuck with it. If you close your ears and your mind to a far more relevant, well evidenced, objective, far more detached  alternative as you evidently do, then you have the problem, not us.

I shudder at the thought of having such a cottonwoolly cocoon around me.

[wigginhall]

I suppose the idea of an ultimate creator is comforting for some.  Well, so is heroin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suppose the idea of an ultimate creator is comforting for some.  Well, so is heroin.

Yeeeeeeehaw

Wigginhall invites y'all to the annual Clambake, hoedown and barrel scrape.

Oh territory folks should stick together, territory folks should all be pals.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Since there are only three possible answers
The house popped out of nowhere
The house was built
The house has been there eternally

The same answers go for Joe Bloggs

He either popped out of nowhere
He was made
Joe Bloggs has been there eternally

The same answers apply to anything...God, the universe or anything

Now an infinite regression suggests that that from which an endless regression is derived is eternal

Your premise is off, but in any case did you mean there just to shift your open questions about the universe to “god”? If you think that the same explanatory options apply to “god” as apply to the universe, dropping “god” into the picture has no explanatory value. You might as well add “god’s dad” and “god’s granddad” while you’re at it for all the value it adds.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Your premise is off, but in any case did you mean there just to shift your open questions about the universe to “god”? If you think that the same explanatory options apply to “god” as apply to the universe, dropping “god” into the picture has no explanatory value. You might as well add “god’s dad” and “god’s granddad” while you’re at it for all the value it adds.

Total nonsense.
If you can find it in your self to propose that the universe popped out of nothing or that it is eternal then to dismiss that it was made is a patent and arbitrary piece of Goddodging.

So would allowing the universe to pop out of nothing.or being eternal but not allowing those attributes to God....

The universe though shows no evidence of being a perpetual motion machine though.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You fail to understand. 

The real reason why the notion of a creator fails is this : if we ask the question "why do things exist" then the answer "because something made them" is not an explanation, it is a sleight of hand.  It might look superficially like an explanation, but in fact it explains nothings, it is a logic trick to snare the unwary.

In addition to what Vlad said on this torridon, we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore there is abundant evidence to support the concept. If you apply your argument to e.g. cars,

"why do cars exist" then the answer "because human beings made them" is not an explanation, it is a sleight of hand.  It might look superficially like an explanation, but in fact it explains nothing, it is a logic trick to snare the unwary.

so it is impossible to conclude that human beings designed and made them. That should tell you immediately that the argument used here against a creator is flawed.

[wigginhall]

Goddodging is such a bizarre notion, as if the supernatural presses upon us with tremendous impact.   How does that work?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Goddodging is such a bizarre notion, as if the supernatural presses upon us with tremendous impact.   How does that work?

I outlined an act, actually two acts of goddodgery a couple of posts ago.

[Gordon]

In addition to what Vlad said on this torridon, we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore there is abundant evidence to support the concept. If you apply your argument to e.g. cars,

"why do cars exist" then the answer "because human beings made them" is not an explanation, it is a sleight of hand.  It might look superficially like an explanation, but in fact it explains nothing, it is a logic trick to snare the unwary.

so it is impossible to conclude that human beings designed and made them. That should tell you immediately that the argument used here against a creator is flawed.

Logic just passes you by, Sword.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Ippy is right, AB, you are completely in cloud cuckoo land. You keep repeating the same assertions and are apparenty unable to see any other point of view at all.

So I take it you can see Alan Burns' point of view? If not, doesn't

you are completely in cloud cuckoo land. You keep repeating the same assertions and are apparenty unable to see any other point of view at all

apply to you too?

[SusanDoris]

In addition to what Vlad said on this torridon, we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore there is abundant evidence to support the concept. If you apply your argument to e.g. cars,


so it is impossible to conclude that human beings designed and made them. That should tell you immediately that the argument used here against a creator is flawed.

Well, I’ve seen some silly posts by you, but that’s one of the daftest.
 Oh, and it gained nothing by the insertion  of quotes without proper tags. The way you do it adds muddle not clarity.

[SusanDoris]

So I take it you can see Alan Burns' point of view? If not, doesn't
apply to you too?

No, because, as you probably don't recall, I was a believer in God for half my life.

[wigginhall]

I outlined an act, actually two acts of goddodgery a couple of posts ago.

So we shouldn't dismiss a supernatural origin of stuff?  How does that work?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Total nonsense.

If you intended “Joe Bloggs” as a placemarker for “god”, then clearly not: they were your words, not mine.

If you can find it in your self to propose that the universe popped out of nothing or that it is eternal then to dismiss that it was made is a patent and arbitrary piece of Goddodging.

First what I can “find it in myself” to believe is neither here nor there. You set out some options for explaining “the universe” (that were wrong by the way, but no matter), then applied the same options to your placemarker for “god”, ie “Joe Bloggs”. I merely asked whether that was your intention.

Second, your odd notion of “goddodging” is utter bollocks for reasons that have been explained to you countless times that you then either run away from Swordy-style or lie about Vladdo-style. Why then bother with it again?

So would allowing the universe to pop out of nothing.or being eternal but not allowing those attributes to God....

No-one does that. You can paint whatever attributes on to “god” you like. I merely explained that giving him the same ones that you gave to the universe in any case has zero explanatory worth for the universe. It just displaces the problem to somewhere else. 

The universe though shows no evidence of being a perpetual motion machine though.

Actually it does, but that’s another matter (and you’d need at least a rudimentary understanding of the collapse of time itself at very tiny scales to see why the question is misplaced in any case).

[torridon]

In addition to what Vlad said on this torridon, we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore there is abundant evidence to support the concept. If you apply your argument to e.g. cars,

"why do cars exist" then the answer "because human beings made them" is not an explanation, it is a sleight of hand.  It might look superficially like an explanation, but in fact it explains nothing, it is a logic trick to snare the unwary.

so it is impossible to conclude that human beings designed and made them. That should tell you immediately that the argument used here against a creator is flawed.

No it is a sleight of hand because an argument is being deployed which works in everyday situations, indeed it seems abundantly clear beyond all reasonable doubt that things exist because thing(s) made them.  However, the reasoning fails for first causes which by definition are not made by something else

[bluehillside Retd.]

Swordy,

In addition to what Vlad said on this torridon, we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore there is abundant evidence to support the concept. If you apply your argument to e.g. cars,

"why do cars exist" then the answer "because human beings made them" is not an explanation, it is a sleight of hand.  It might look superficially like an explanation, but in fact it explains nothing, it is a logic trick to snare the unwary.

so it is impossible to conclude that human beings designed and made them. That should tell you immediately that the argument used here against a creator is flawed.

Unusual combination of the category error and Paley's watch there. Good effort.

Oh, and as you refused point blank to answer my question about whether if I bothered rebutting your attempted arguments you'd bother to address the rebuttals should I take it that the answer is "no" - ie, that you'd just continue to run away?

[Alan Burns]

Which as has been pointed out in multiple occasions would create an infinite regress. Just one of the many areas of illogical thinking from you.

If we think of causes in material terms, there will always be an infinite regress, because physical events always have a cause, and if all the the causes are also physical events, then we get the inevitable infinite regress.

But in our ability to consciously contemplate the nature and ultimate origin of things, we get a brief insight that reality must go beyond what can be defined by the mere physical.  In order to avoid the infinite regress we must conclude that there must be an ultimate source which can't be defined entirely in physical terms.  And similar implications apply when contemplating the source of our own conscious thought processes.   In order to avoid the unrealistic conclusion that every conscious thought is entirely predetermined, we need to contemplate the possibility of non physical events which enable our own control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If we think of causes in material terms, there will always be an infinite regress, because physical events always have a cause, and if all the the causes are also physical events, then we get the inevitable infinite regress.

Not if we have even a rudimentary grasp of the quantum we don't.

But in our ability to consciously contemplate the nature and ultimate origin of things, we get a brief insight that reality must go beyond what can be defined by the mere physical.

Nope. You have all your work ahead of you still (finally) to tell us what the non-physical would be and then to demonstrate its existence. You know, the stuff you always just gloss over as if it wasn't a problem because just asserting it makes it so.

In order to avoid the infinite regress we must conclude that there must be an ultimate source which can't be defined entirely in physical terms.  And similar implications apply when contemplating the source of our own conscious thought processes.   In order to avoid the unrealistic conclusion that every conscious thought is entirely predetermined, we need to contemplate the possibility of non physical events which enable our own control.

No we mustn't and, even if we did, why not ten such "sources", or a 1,000 of them, or a source that's entirely other than the "source" you think it to be? At best here what you have is a very bad argument for deism, but nothing at all to suggest theism.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Not if we have even a rudimentary grasp of the quantum we don't.

And do you not realise that indeterminable quantum events could be the gateway which allows the interaction of the non physical within our material universe?

[torridon]

And do you not realise that indeterminable quantum events could be the gateway which allows the interaction of the non physical within our material universe?

Grasping at straws, here

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And do you not realise that indeterminable quantum events could be the gateway which allows the interaction of the non physical within our material universe?

And do you not realise that:

1. Anything "could be", so positing that the quantum "could be a gateway" to a supposed non-physical is epistemically equivalent to the conjecture that the quantum could be a gateway to leprechaun land;

2. Still you have neither even a rudimentary explanation of what this non-physical would be, nor an argument of any kind to demonstrate its existence; and

3. Starting a sentence with "do you not realise" when you've made no attempt to demonstrate the claim that supposedly should be realised is just assuming your premise - yet another of the basic logical errors on which you consistently rely?