Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

It comes up regularly. The only leg work I shall be doing on your behalf is to flag up when you or anyone else does it again.
You may like to use the search engine on the forum to look at the frequency of the term 'turtles all the way down".

Does it? Where? Leaving aside it's a piece of whataboutery.



And any clue about what you were referring to by 'your own riposte'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does it? Where? Leaving aside it's a piece of whataboutery.



And any clue about what you were referring to by 'your own riposte'?

Look if I put the question which is more likely, a created universe or an infinity of causes what do you think the honest preferred explanation will be?

Try it yourself.

[Nearly Sane]

Look if I put the question which is more likely, a created universe or an infinity of causes what do you think the honest preferred explanation will be?

Try it yourself.

So you keep lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Look if I put the question which is more likely, a created universe or an infinity of causes what do you think the honest preferred explanation will be?

Try it yourself.

The latter, because an infinite universe hypothesis requires fewer assumptions than adducing an extra feature (a creator) that itself would have to address the same questions (Occam’s razor).     

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

The latter, because an infinite universe hypothesis requires fewer assumptions than adducing an extra feature (a creator) that itself would have to address the same questions (Occam’s razor).   

Fuck me but I owe Vlad an apology here. Someone is actually going for the idea of an infinite regress as if that makes any sense.

[Alan Burns]

So AB, what is your reasoning for not believing in the huge number of gods that are purported by believers to exist across human history that aren't the christian god.

Remember that the difference between you and me is that you do not believe in n-1 gods (where n is the large number of gods purported to exist) and I do not believe in n gods. Perhaps let's discuss the n-1 gods that neither of us believe in as that may allow you to understand why you don't believe in them.

Human history abounds with man made attempts to seek out the truth behind their existence (which includes the current science/evolution theory).  There can only be one truth, and it is highly apparent that mankind does not have the ability to discover the definitive truth by their own failed attempts.

My Christian faith is centred around the God who makes Himself known to us by becoming one of us and revealing the true nature of our being and divine purpose in our lives.  It is not possible to communicate the full extent of my faith and knowledge of God to someone outside the Christian faith.  What I try to do is help people to remove the false barriers to belief in God and simply allow God to make Himself known to them in a way which can never be rescinded.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Fuck me but I owe Vlad an apology here. Someone is actually going for the idea of an infinite regress as if that makes any sense.

Fuck me, but I did no such thing. Vlad’s question was binary: “…what do you think the honest preferred explanation will be?” I merely explained to him that Occam’s razor suggests the more likely of only two options is that which requires the fewer assumptions. "Preferring" A over B because B requires more assumptions than A doesn’t make you a proponent of A. Not even close. 

[ekim]

  What I try to do is help people to remove the false barriers to belief in God and simply allow God to make Himself known to them in a way which can never be rescinded.

Unfortunately by doing so you are creating false barriers to the belief in Brahman, Nirvana, Tao and using the sexist term 'Himself' doesn't help either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The latter, because an infinite universe hypothesis requires fewer assumptions than adducing an extra feature (a creator) that itself would have to address the same questions (Occam’s razor).   

Don't be daft. An infinite chain of causes unnecessarily multiplies entities infinitely...what are you thinking of?

 In what way does the universe provide sufficent reason for itself?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Don't be daft. An infinite chain of causes unnecessarily multiplies entities infinitely...what are you thinking of?

Wrong again. A universe with infinite prior events requires fewer assumptions than a creator with infinite prior creators. Your only way out of that is special pleading (ie, magic), but that’s just white noise. 

A. You will be £10m better off this weekend because you will win the lottery.

B. You will be £10m better off this weekend because Father Christmas will drop it down your chimney.

Which of these truth claims do you "prefer"? Why?

In what way does the universe provide sufficent reason for itself?

In what way does you god provide sufficient reason for itself? The difference between us though is that I can show that there is a universe, so I start with fewer assumptions than you do. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Fuck me, but I did no such thing. Vlad’s question was binary: “…what do you think the honest preferred explanation will be?” I merely explained to him that Occam’s razor suggests the more likely of only two options is that which requires the fewer assumptions. "Preferring" A over B because B requires more assumptions than A doesn’t make you a proponent of A. Not even close.

Are you that fucking stupid? Preferring an option is taking a position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Are you that fucking stupid? Preferring an option is taking a position.

Are you feeling unwell? The only “position” when A requires fewer assumptions than B is that A is the “preferred” option of the available two. That’s not a claim that A is true though.

“Preferring” the claim “I will win £10m on the lottery this weekend” over the claim “Father Christmas will drop £10m down my chimney this weekend” is not a claim that I actually will win £10m on the lottery.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Are you feeling unwell? The only “position” when A requires fewer assumptions than B is that A is the “preferred” option of the available two. That’s not a claim that A is true though.

“Preferring” the claim “I will win £10m on the lottery this weekend” over the claim “Father Christmas will drop £10m down my chimney this weekend” is not a claim that I actually will win £10m on the lottery.     

If you think an infinite regress is in any way a better option you are an idiot. Both you and Vlad use cause and effect idiotically. He then throws it away like a moron but that's useless as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. A universe with infinite prior events requires fewer assumptions than a creator with infinite prior creators. Your only way out of that is special pleading (ie, magic), but that’s just white noise. 

A. You will be £10m better off this weekend because you will win the lottery.

B. You will be £10m better off this weekend because Father Christmas will drop it down your chimney.

Which of these truth claims do you "prefer"? Why?

In what way does you god provide sufficient reason for itself? The difference between us though is that I can show that there is a universe, so I start with fewer assumptions than you do.

God provides sufficient reason for why there is anything rather than nothing and an adequate reason for our observation of only contingent things and that provides sufficient reason for God. There could be an unobserved necessary about the universe but the properties of that would still fit the Aquinian definitions of God.

''The universe just is'' ignores the PSF as does an infinite chain of causation...which seems to suffer from insufficient reason.

Occam's razor depends on reason any theory which suspends sufficient reason while insisting on the use of reason in the shape of Occam's razor is contradictory in it's invocation of reason.

[ProfessorDavey]

God provides sufficient reason for why there is anything rather than nothing and an adequate reason for our observation of only contingent things and that provides sufficient reason for God.

Handwaving and unevidenced assertion.

And logically flawed because you then need to determine what provides sufficient reason for god's existence. The only way you can get around this is by logical contortions of special pleading, circular arguments or basing a conclusion on a subjective definition.

[Nearly Sane]

God provides sufficient reason for why there is anything rather than nothing and an adequate reason for our observation of only contingent things and that provides sufficient reason for God. There could be an unobserved necessary about the universe but the properties of that would still fit the Aquinian definitions of God.

''The universe just is'' ignores the PSF as does an infinite chain of causation...which seems to suffer from insufficient reason.

Occam's razor depends on reason any theory which suspends sufficient reason while insisting on the use of reason in the shape of Occam's razor is contradictory in it's invocation of reason.

Idiotic drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Handwaving and unevidenced assertion.

And logically flawed because you then need to determine what provides sufficient reason for god's existence. The only way you can get around this is by logical contortions of special pleading, circular arguments or basing a conclusion on a subjective definition.

I think you are mistaking ''cause'' for ''sufficient reason''. Everything must have a sufficient explanation or reason but not everything needs a cause. God is sufficiently explained by contingent things being dependent ultimately on a necessary thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Idiotic drivel.

People might say that, you being the person but you never seem to offer any reasons.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are mistaking ''cause'' for ''sufficient reason''. Everything must have a sufficient explanation or reason but not everything needs a cause. God is sufficiently explained by contingent things being dependent ultimately on a necessary thing.

Nope - complete non-sense. That only works in the simplistic world of intention and design. Until or unless you are able to demonstrate why everything must have a sufficient explanation the conversation is totally irrelevant.

And even were you to do this, if everything must have a sufficient reason or sufficient explanation then so must god. And if you then argue that god is its own sufficient reason or sufficient explanation you'd need to justify why anything else could not be its own sufficient reason or sufficient explanation, which you wouldn't be able to do without special pleading. At which point you'd create a situation where god is no longer necessary.

[Nearly Sane]

People might say that, you being the person but you never seem to offer any reasons.

Really? Lying as well. You use cause and effect until you don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - complete non-sense. That only works in the simplistic world of intention and design. Until or unless you are able to demonstrate why everything must have a sufficient explanation the conversation is totally irrelevant.

Bonnnnnggggg. I'm afraid you've just tried to undermine the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason.....Next contestant please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really? Lying as well. You use cause and effect until you don't.

Cause can be a sufficient reason but not necessarily so. So I will use the word cause where it fits in with the PSR.
I won't say everything has a cause.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope - complete non-sense. That only works in the simplistic world of intention and design. Until or unless you are able to demonstrate why everything must have a sufficient explanation the conversation is totally irrelevant.

Bonnnnnggggg. I'm afraid you've just tried to undermine the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason.....Next contestant please.

No I'm not - I'm saying that only in the context that there is a linear progression - i.e. complexity must arise from greater complexity do you enter the world of sufficient reason, to get over the problem of infinite regress. It is logistical sophistry to get over a problem generated by simplistic thinking about the relationship between entities, which is typically highly anthropocentric.

[Nearly Sane]

Cause can be a sufficient reason but not necessarily so. So I will use the word cause where it fits in with the PSR.
I won't say everything has a cause.

Then you are an idiot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And even were you to do this, if everything must have a sufficient reason or sufficient explanation then so must god.

Yes and I have demonstrated the sufficient reason for God. God is the necessary for the observed universal contingency.