Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

There are two possibilities: either the universe made itself, or it was made. Some people would say 'order' points to the latter.

Or that it’s eternally old.

Or that something other than the universe was made that subsequently became the universe.

Or that, as time itself is a property of the universe, a temporal answer would be meaningless.

Or that by positing a “maker” you then have to invoke special pleading to get it off the hook of exactly the questions you asked about the universe (otherwise some would say that a maker that must itself have been “ordered” points to a maker of its own, and so on forever).

Or that there simply isn’t enough data to form a meaningful conclusion of any kind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spud,

Or that it’s eternally old.

Why did it not experience heat death an eternity ago if that was the case?

[Nearly Sane]

Why did it not experience heat death an eternity ago if that was the case?

So is your god eternal? So it's heat dead?

[Nearly Sane]

Why did it not experience heat death an eternity ago if that was the case?

And what is an 'eternity'?  How many eternities can there be?

[Nearly Sane]

That sounds as though it is easily sorted.

No idea what you are trying to say.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So is your god eternal? So it's heat dead?

And the flag has gone up and yes the ref.....It's a penalty!!!Nearly Sane has conceded a penalty kick trying to bring Vlad down in the penalty area with a bit of whataboutery.

So Vlad places the ball on the spot takes a run up informs Sane that God doesn't work by entropy but the universe does......Vlad shoots......he scores.

De Montaigne,David Hume Jadis witch queen of Narnia.....Your boy has taken a hell of a beating tonight.

[Nearly Sane]

And the flag has gone up and yes the ref.....It's a penalty!!!Nearly Sane has conceded a penalty kick trying to bring Vlad down in the penalty area with a bit of whataboutery.

So Vlad places the ball on the spot takes a run up informs Sane that God doesn't work by entropy but the universe does......Vlad shoots......he scores.

De Montaigne,David Hume Jadis witch queen of Narnia.....Your boy has taken a hell of a beating tonight.

  I think you have mistaken having a orgasm for having an argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

And the flag has gone up and yes the ref.....It's a penalty!!!Nearly Sane has conceded a penalty kick trying to bring Vlad down in the penalty area with a bit of whataboutery.

So Vlad places the ball on the spot takes a run up informs Sane that God doesn't work by entropy but the universe does......Vlad shoots......he scores.

De Montaigne,David Hume Jadis witch queen of Narnia.....Your boy has taken a hell of a beating tonight.

Oh hang on though, VAR is saying something’s amiss! The ref’s running over… he takes a look…yes, sure enough there was an epic piece of special pleading right in the middle of play! How the hell did he miss that? Should’ve gone to Specsavers and bought the whole shop I reckon… so that's Real Perce's non-goal wiped off, and Athletico Reason's 14 - 0 lead restored...and there's still only been ten minutes played!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Oh hang on though, VAR is saying something’s amiss! The ref’s running over… he takes a look…yes, sure enough there was an epic piece of special pleading right in the middle of play! How the hell did he miss that? Should’ve gone to Specsavers and bought the whole shop I reckon…

Wait a minute the goal is allowed because what he is accusing Vlad of specially pleading....God not working by entropy....is actually what Hillside is pleading when he suggests an eternally old universe.......how about that....and...oh my goodness Hillside is squaring up to the ref.....he's taken a swing!!!! Restrained by the two linesman. Trainer Richard Dawkins coming onto the pitch.....Its a red card...he's out,he,s off well Brian what about that...the Stanley Matthews of turdpolishing leaves the field in ignomony

[Nearly Sane]

Wait a minute the goal is allowed because what he is accusing Vlad of specially pleading....God not working by entropy....is actually what Hillside is pleading when he suggests an eternally old universe.......how about that....and...oh my goodness he's squaring up to the ref.....he's taken a swing!!!! Restrained by the two linesman. Trainer Richard Dawkins coming onto the pitch.....Its a red card...he's out,he,s off well Brian what about that...the Stanley Matthew's leaves the field in ignomony

Stop wanking, start arguing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop wanking, start arguing.

Half time Sane.Time for you to hand out the slices of Orrange and get the Bovril urn going.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Wait a minute the goal is allowed because what he is accusing Vlad of specially pleading....God not working by entropy....is actually what Hillside is pleading when he suggests an eternally old universe.......how about that....and...oh my goodness he's squaring up to the ref.....he's taken a swing!!!! Restrained by the two linesman. Trainer Richard Dawkins coming onto the pitch.....Its a red card...he's out,he,s off well Brian what about that...the Stanley Matthew's leaves the field in ignomony

Or does he? VAR again – seems just adding another entity and claiming it to be magic so no rules apply is the Ockham’s Razor fail to end all fails… Athletico Resaon’s star striker is being called back and it’s the Real Perce player who’s been sent off! Amazing scenes here!

Wait, there’s more! I’ve just been handed a note from UEFA – seems Real Perce have never played by the rules so now they’ve been disqualified and wound up all in one evening! Incredible stuff! So there we have it – Atheltico Reason already 27 - 0 up after just 15 minutes have now been declared the outright winners. To be fair, most of us realised long ago that Real Perce never had any intention of playing by the rules in any case, but it’s good to see the league restored to it’s former glory…   

… small boys playing in the park…jumpers for goalposts…eh? eh?       

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

[/Stop wanking, start arguing.

You do realise that you're talking to Vlad right? And after all this time you expect him to manage an argument?

Really though? 

[Nearly Sane]

Half time Sane.Time for you to hand out the slices of Orrange and get the Bovril urn going.

have a nice Friday evening.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop wanking, start arguing.

Hmmm let's see. Arguing with you guys on Religionethics....or having a wank.
...........No contest really.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmm let's see. Arguing with you guys on Religionethics....or having a wank.
...........No contest really.

Since you only do the second, that's obvious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Or does he? VAR again – seems just adding another entity and claiming it to be magic so no rules apply is the Ockham’s Razor fail to end all fails… Athletico Resaon’s star striker is being called back and it’s the Real Perce player who’s been sent off! Amazing scenes here!

Wait, there’s more! I’ve just been handed a note from UEFA – seems Real Perce have never played by the rules so now they’ve been disqualified and wound up all in one evening! Incredible stuff! So there we have it – Atheltico Reason already 27 - 0 up after just 15 minutes have now been declared the outright winners. To be fair, most of us realised long ago that Real Perce never had any intention of playing by the rules in any case, but it’s good to see the league restored to it’s former glory…   

… small boys playing in the park…jumpers for goalposts…eh? eh?       

So you are proposing a universe which doesn't run by entropy so we dont need a God who doesn't run by entropy?
If so
Can you see the obvious problem here?
That's right the universe does run by entropy.

Now you could argue that there might be part of the universe that doesn't ru.n by entropy.

But wouldn't this be beyond space and time?
Also because it was not subject to entropy . It would be unaffected by the entropic part.

Because it is non entropic it would not be subject to the laws of nature. Hillside......you could very well have proposed something supernatural there.

If you arent proposing a universe which is non entropic. Why did it not experience heat death an infinitely long time ago.

If God was entropic then as far as his existence is concerned heat death wouldn't affect his existence per se.

[ekim]

Sorry about that folks.  We seemed to have slipped channels to the Soccer Ad hominem Channel.  We are now back to the DBS (Divine Broadcasting Service) where there is a special announcement about the topic 'Searching for God'.  Bearing in mind that Armageddon is due on November 5th this year,  will all those who have found God please declare this and how you did it and how you know it to be so.

[Alan Burns]

If evil was a reality, then god, being defined as good, would eliminate it, or not tolerate it.  A God that tolerates evil to exist is itself evil.  They say that God cannot lie, but it seems he tolerates the Devil to spread lies, deceiving the hearts of men.  This does not add up.

If there was no evil, would we recognise good?

[torridon]

If there was no evil, would we recognise good?

You're scraping the barrel, methinks.  In what way would being deceived by the Devil help us to recognise evil behaviours ?  You're making no sense.  If you are deceived, then you would not recognise it would you ?

Oh deary me, you ain't half hard work.

[Alan Burns]

Nobody denies that we can think, and the freedom to think without coercion can be correctly described as 'free'.  What is denied is your absurd conceptualisation of freedom, as in random-but-not-random freedom. But I'm sure you already know this, it has been explained to you ad nauseam, and yet here you are again using sleight of hand and misdirection to give the impression that you have a valid point of view.

I have never mentioned the word "random" in my explanations for human free will.
I have simply claimed that it is beyond the scope of being defined by physical reactions alone.

I am continually illustrating that the repetitive explanations given for our conscious freedom to think, which are based upon scientific evidence to date, fail to explain the evidence given by the reality of what we actually do think.  Our thoughts cannot defined by the presence or absence of coercion.  Neither can they realistically be defined by inevitable chains of physically driven reactions whose origin traces back to the beginning of time.  There is a conscious act of deliberation needed to invoke every thought we make.  How and where this act of deliberation occurs may well be beyond the scope of evidence provided by human scientific knowledge, but the evidence that it exists is in "you" and your demonstrable ability to drive your own thought processes.

[torridon]

I have never mentioned the word "random" in my explanations for human free will.
I have simply claimed that it is beyond the scope of being defined by physical reactions alone.

Pretty much everything you write on the subject implies random, which is quickly followed up with 'but not random'.  Your claim that we are free from cause and effect is the claim that we are random.  It is nothing to do with 'physical', it is a principle of logic. Every time you claim you are your own cause, you are claiming to be random. Choices need reasons, in order to be meaningful, whether said reasons are 'physical' is neither here nor there; the principle of cause and effect is a principle of logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry about that folks.  We seemed to have slipped channels to the Soccer Ad hominem Channel.  We are now back to the DBS (Divine Broadcasting Service) where there is a special announcement about the topic 'Searching for God'.  Bearing in mind that Armageddon is due on November 5th this year,  will all those who have found God please declare this and how you did it and how you know it to be so.

If the Universe is infinitely old why did it not undergo heat death
An infinitely long time ago?

[torridon]

I am continually illustrating that the repetitive explanations given for our conscious freedom to think, which are based upon scientific evidence to date, fail to explain the evidence given by the reality of what we actually do think.  Our thoughts cannot defined by the presence or absence of coercion.  Neither can they realistically be defined by inevitable chains of physically driven reactions whose origin traces back to the beginning of time.  There is a conscious act of deliberation needed to invoke every thought we make.  How and where this act of deliberation occurs may well be beyond the scope of evidence provided by human scientific knowledge, but the evidence that it exists is in "you" and your demonstrable ability to drive your own thought processes.

Nobody claims that thoughts are defined by the absence of coercion; it is freedom that is so defined and every person is free to think his thoughts privately in his own head in the proper sense of the word.  But that doesn't buy you some irrational freedom from principles of cause and effect, because that 'freedom' would mean random thoughts.  The thoughts we get occur for a reason, our minds operate smoothly, within the bounds of reason.  Someone plagued by random thought processes would probably have to be incarcerated for his own protection.

[Enki]

I have never mentioned the word "random" in my explanations for human free will.

You're right you haven't but once you reject the logical deterministic scenario, that's all you are left with.

I have simply claimed that it is beyond the scope of being defined by physical reactions alone.

You can claim it all you want, but, unless you have incontravertible evidence that you know everything there is to know about physical reactions, then your claim amounts to jack shit.

I am continually illustrating that the repetitive explanations given for our conscious freedom to think, which are based upon scientific evidence to date, fail to explain the evidence given by the reality of what we actually do think.

What 'reality'? I find it entirely comprehensible that my thoughts are the result of electomagnetic activity within my brain and that they are dependent on sensory input, previous memories, learned behaviours, cultural attitudes, genetic make up. Also I am quite willing to accept that my thoughts are the result of complex brain activity which is present in my unconscious/subconscious as wel as my conscious mind. So, please, when you talk about 'reality' don't use the inclusive 'we' as my interpretation of reality seems very different to yours.

Our thoughts cannot defined by the presence or absence of coercion.

Yes, but nobody, as far as I know, tries to define thoughts in this manner.

Neither can they realistically be defined by inevitable chains of physically driven reactions whose origin traces back to the beginning of time.

Why on earth not? Granted the complexity would be overwhelming in its magnitude. While accepting that quantum events may have a part to play, why on earth can't we all be the result of 'chains of physically driven reactions' and interactions? Why isn't it realistic? This is how the whole physical universe seems to work as far as we can tell.

There is a conscious act of deliberation needed to invoke every thought we make. How and where this act of deliberation occurs may well be beyond the scope of evidence provided by human scientific knowledge,

I can't agree. There are many examples of people who say just the opposite, including such creative artists as Grayson Perry, Vangelis, Ray Bradbury for instance. For my own part I regularly have had thoughts which come unannounced into my mind. Science however is making great strides in understanding the human mind

but the evidence that it exists is in "you" and your demonstrable ability to drive your own thought processes.

Well as I define the 'you' as predominantly the functioning of the individual's brain. I see no problem with 'me' driving my own thought processes  at all.