Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you are. Your reasoning of “most of what we observe so far about the universe is determinative, therefore the universe itself must have been caused” is, no matter how poor, just a rationale for why there's a just is creator. You’re still asserting a just is creator though, no matter what your rationale for it.

I've never used the word determinative, so what do you mean by it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've never used the word determinative, so what do you mean by it?

Cause and effect.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Really? How about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVSr22kqSOs

Yes, the observation of unusually complex animal behaviour can be presumed to be associated with human like thinking processes, but it does not necessarily mean that the creature in question possesses the mental aptitude we associate with such observed behaviour.   It is more likely to be learnt behaviour based on previous experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Cause and effect.

Cause and effect can I suppose provide sufficient reason for contingent things but the necessary entity at the end of a hierarchy(Not necessarily temporal) of contingency has no cause. Sufficient reason for it is found in the argument from contingency.

The universes candidacy as the necessary entity is spoiled by the undeniable contingency of it's observed parts. An infinite regress multiplies entities beyond necessity is true in more than one sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, the observation of unusually complex animal behaviour can be presumed to be associated with human like thinking processes, but it does not necessarily mean that the creature in question possesses the mental aptitude we associate with such observed behaviour.   It is more likely to be learnt behaviour based on previous experience.

“It is more likely to be learnt behaviour…” is just another of your unqualified assertions, and in any case “…previous experience” of what? Is there a magpie university somewhere? Do magpies subscribe to online training courses? What?

Actually, working out that adding stones will displace water closer to the top and then carrying out the plan shows a remarkable series of linked thought processes, equivalent to that of a child at least.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Cause and effect can I suppose provide sufficient reason for contingent things but the necessary entity at the end of a hierarchy(Not necessarily temporal) of contingency has no cause. Sufficient reason for it is found in the argument from contingency.

Only if you just assume an “end of the hierarchy”, and even if you do that to justify conjuring up a creator you must then ask exactly same questions about the creator that you were asking about the universe. Your way out of that – “it’s magic innit” – is no answer at all. In other words, you’re committing the argument from ignorance fallacy.     

The universes candidacy as the necessary entity is spoiled by the undeniable contingency of it's observed parts. An infinite regress multiplies entities beyond necessity is true in more than one sense.

Word salad. Try to express yourself in comprehensible sentences. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Only if you just assume an “end of the hierarchy”, and even if you do that to justify conjuring up a creator you must then ask exactly same questions about the creator that you were asking about the universe. Your way out of that – “it’s magic innit” – is no answer at all. In other words, you’re committing the argument from ignorance fallacy.     

Word salad. Try to express yourself in comprehensible sentences.

It's not "just" an assumption Hillside it is the logical consequence of a hierarchy of contingency.
A Chain of contingency on it's own without necessity is a logical absurdity not even as sound as magic

[jeremyp]

I'm not making the claim that God just is but thatGod is because he necessarily exists.

Those both mean the same thing. You haven't done anything to show God necessarily exists.

Now if you say the universe necessarily exists we would then have to ask about the presence in part of the universe which is contingent. Unable to dismiss the presence of the contingent we are then forced into accepting a necessary part which is er, not contingent and not contingent on it.

It's a good thing I'm not making that assertion then, because you seem to be thoroughly confused about the Universe and the things in the Universe.
[/quote]
Still waiting on you to tell me who has observed that the Universe is contingent.

[jeremyp]

A Chain of contingency on it's own without necessity is a logical absurdity not even as sound as magic

Is it? Why?

Why do you choose to end the chain at your god and not one step before or one step after. It seems you have made an arbitrary decision based on what you want to be true.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not "just" an assumption Hillside it is the logical consequence of a hierarchy of contingency.
A Chain of contingency on it's own without necessity is a logical absurdity not even as sound as magic

What if a chain of contingency is actually circular Vlad - how does that equate with you claimed hierarchy.

You do seem terribly wedded to unidirectional linearity in your thinking Vlad. Other options are, of course, plausible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's not "just" an assumption Hillside it is the logical consequence of a hierarchy of contingency.
A Chain of contingency on it's own without necessity is a logical absurdity not even as sound as magic

Oh dear. OK, let’s dispense with the cosmological argument once and for all:

1. Everything we observe in the universe is contingent on something else.

     A dubious claim at best. Already it seems “true” randomness is a possibility:

    “So it’s likely that before too long, we will be able to have copious bits whose randomness is guaranteed by the causal
     structure of spacetime itself, should we want that.”

    https://www.americanscientist.org/article/quantum-randomness

2. Therefore everything that exists in the universe must be contingent on something else.

     That’s an unsupportable claim – basically the black swan error of inductive reasoning. How would you know
     that, even if 1. was not the case, there are no non-contingent events that haven’t been observed?

3. Total contingency within the universe must also be a property of the universe as a whole.

     Why? Speculations about the universe in toto inhabit a model in which there’s no reason to think the laws of
     physics (or of anything else) apply. Why then just assume that contingency within the universe must
     also apply to the universe?

4.  Therefore a universe creator.

     Except hypothesising a “creator” merely displaces the same unanswered questions about the universe (Did it
     begin? How did it begin? etc) to that creator. “It’s a mystery” (ie, “it’s magic innit”) isn’t an answer to that –
     it’s the abnegation of an answer. It has no useful function and it’s where you end up when you’ve given up
     looking for a meaningful explanation.

5.  Therefore god.

     No, because you have no basis to call something a “god” when other possibilities exist. How for example
     would you know that super advanced aliens able to manipulate time (“time loops”) hadn’t brought about their
     own existence and then embarked on universe creation?

6. Therefore a theistic god.

    No. Nothwithstanding all the multiple failures in the chain of reasoning, at best – at very best – all the
    cosmological argument would give you is deism. That is, one (or more than one) indifferent god who wound up
    the cosmic clock and then vanished.  

7. Therefore the Christian god.
 
    First, which Christian god as there seem to be as many descriptions as there are Christians? Loving?
    Vengeful? Concerned with what people do in bed? Pick any one you like as all types are equally (in)valid.

    Second, seriously? Why your god rather than any of the plethora of other creator gods that countless faiths have
    asserted into existence over the millennia?

So now the cosmological argument is dead and buried, it’s worth asking why such obviously flawed thinking has persisted for so long in the popular discourse. My guess is that it’s because it's simple, and that it appeals to our intuition – “that tree didn’t just fall over, the wind blew it – therefore etc”. In other words its very superficiality is its strength. Provided you don’t think about it, at first pass it’s quite persuasive right? Your problem though is that some people have thought about it, and so have sound reasons to dismiss it.

You won’t reply openly or honestly to any of this of course (you never do) but consider it a public service nonetheless – if ever you’re tempted again to try the cosmological argument you can quickly refer to this post to see where you’ve gone wrong.

You’re welcome.       

[Alan Burns]

Why your god rather than any of the plethora of other creator gods that countless faiths have
    asserted into existence over the millennia?[/i]

The God who has made Himself known to me is the only God I can believe in.
I cannot doubt the existence of the God with whom I have a personal relationship.
You will never be capable of analysing or understanding this from outside the Christian faith.
The only way of getting to know God is to dispense with all the false barriers to belief and invite Him into your life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The God who has made Himself known to me is the only God I can believe in.

That’s called circular reasoning Alan – your conclusion is inherent in your premise.

I cannot doubt the existence of the God with whom I have a personal relationship.

See above.

You will never be capable of analysing or understanding this from outside the Christian faith.

So in order to believe you have to believe already? Can you see the problem with that?

The only way of getting to know God is to dispense with all the false barriers to belief and invite Him into your life.

If you seriously think there to be “false barriers” why not try at least to tell us what they are rather than just assert their existence? Your efforts to do so so far have all relied on fallacious thinking of various stripes – if you think you have a cogent argument though, why not (finally) share it here?       

[Maeght]

The God who has made Himself known to me is the only God I can believe in.
I cannot doubt the existence of the God with whom I have a personal relationship.
You will never be capable of analysing or understanding this from outside the Christian faith.
The only way of getting to know God is to dispense with all the false barriers to belief and invite Him into your life.

What are the false barriers?

[Alan Burns]

What are the false barriers?

My perception is that human pride is the biggest barrier to belief in the one true God.
Thinking that human knowledge alone is sufficient to dispense with all the evidence for God's existence.
Yet those who try to use such knowledge fail to see that our ability, our freedom to manipulate and direct our own thought processes to reach such conclusions can never result from the unavoidable consequences of the strings of cause and effect within a material brain.  The most compelling evidence for God's existence is within you - your God given soul which facilitates the gift of human free will - our freedom to choose our own destiny.

Matthew 18:2-4

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My perception is that human pride is the biggest barrier to belief in the one true God.

Then your perception is wrong – it’s human reasoning that’s the barrier, and “the one true God” is just an unqualified faith claim.

Thinking that human knowledge alone is sufficient to dispense with all the evidence for God's existence.

It is sufficient because, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times without rebuttal, when you examine it “all the evidence” turns out to be no evidence at all.

Yet those who try to use such knowledge fail to see that our ability, our freedom to manipulate and direct our own thought processes to reach such conclusions…

Which as you should know well by now is a false premise. If you want a separate “we” to do this supposed manipulating and directing then you need both to demonstrate its existence and to address the raft of logical contradictions it gives you.

…can never result from the unavoidable consequences of the strings of cause and effect within a material brain.

Another unqualified faith claim. Why do you think that?

The most compelling evidence for God's existence is within you - your God given soul which facilitates the gift of human free will - our freedom to choose our own destiny.

Matthew 18:2-4

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

A “soul” you’ve never been able to demonstrate, nor whose inherent contradictions even in principle you’ve never even tried to address.

If all you have is mindless faith claims (as seems to be the case) you should be over on the faith sharing area rather in the area where (some) people use argument.   

[ProfessorDavey]

The God who has made Himself known to me is the only God I can believe in.
I cannot doubt the existence of the God with whom I have a personal relationship.
You will never be capable of analysing or understanding this from outside the Christian faith.
The only way of getting to know God is to dispense with all the false barriers to belief and invite Him into your life.

Beyond the circular reasoning mentioned above, I wonder whether we are in the world of confirmation bias.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us whether you were brought up in a christian context - point being when people 'encounter god' it pretty well always seems to resemble the god of their upbringing. Wonder why that might be AB?

[Maeght]

My perception is that human pride is the biggest barrier to belief in the one true God.
Thinking that human knowledge alone is sufficient to dispense with all the evidence for God's existence.
Yet those who try to use such knowledge fail to see that our ability, our freedom to manipulate and direct our own thought processes to reach such conclusions can never result from the unavoidable consequences of the strings of cause and effect within a material brain.  The most compelling evidence for God's existence is within you - your God given soul which facilitates the gift of human free will - our freedom to choose our own destiny.

Matthew 18:2-4

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Don't agree with your perception. I'm a non believer because I'm not convinced by the evidence presented by believers. There is no convincing evidence I am aware of - your 'most compelling evidence' isn't convincing at all for example.

Quoting scripture to a non-believer isn't really a good approach. Basically what is being said is 'don't think about this too hard, just believe'.

[Alan Burns]

Another unqualified faith claim. Why do you think that?

Because I have the ability to think, rather than just react.
If our thought processes are merely driven by physical reactions to past events, our ability to consciously reason will be somewhat limited by the deterministic nature of the laws of physics.  Conscious control of our thought processes needs a controller - You.

[Gordon]

My perception is that human pride is the biggest barrier to belief in the one true God.
Thinking that human knowledge alone is sufficient to dispense with all the evidence for God's existence.
Yet those who try to use such knowledge fail to see that our ability, our freedom to manipulate and direct our own thought processes to reach such conclusions can never result from the unavoidable consequences of the strings of cause and effect within a material brain.  The most compelling evidence for God's existence is within you - your God given soul which facilitates the gift of human free will - our freedom to choose our own destiny.

Matthew 18:2-4

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Poor advice, Alan: Matthew (or whoever it was) is clearly too naive to take seriously.

I hardly think that an adult voluntarily regressing to some childlike state would ever actually work: in fact, I doubt it is even possible to 'change' by deliberately putting to one side years of experience and knowledge so as to become more credulous (and also more vulnerable).  A silly idea.

[jeremyp]

Because I have the ability to think, rather than just react.
If our thought processes are merely driven by physical reactions to past events, our ability to consciously reason will be somewhat limited by the deterministic nature of the laws of physics.  Conscious control of our thought processes needs a controller - You.

You have the ability to think, but your religion strongly discourages you from using it.

It's funny how religions never tell their adherents to use their critical thinking skills. They must always blindly accept what their superiors tell them - like children really.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because I have the ability to think, rather than just react.

There’s nothing to suggest that thinking isn’t an emergent property of functioning brains.
 

If our thought processes are merely driven by physical reactions to past events, our ability to consciously reason will be somewhat limited by the deterministic nature of the laws of physics.

More or less gibberish. “…our ability to consciously reason” as you put it need not be “somewhat limited by the deterministic nature of the laws of physics” in the way you imply at all. If you think nonetheless that the process of thinking must in some way lie outside the paradigm of physics, then rather than endlessly just assert it why don’t you finally attempt at least to explain WHY you think that to be the case?   

Conscious control of our thought processes needs a controller - You.

Full on gibberish now. The “controller” in your scenario would be a thinking entity instructing another thinking entity what to do (thereby presumably nullifying the thinking of the second entity, which thus becomes a slave system to the controller). All very speculative and loaded with contradictions as a model but, as you’re lost in “not even wrong” territory here again, there’s nothing to consider.

I’m pretty sure you have no rational arguments to support your assertions (if you had, you’d have deployed them long ago) but, nonetheless, why not finally try at least to construct an argument that doesn’t collapse immediately into fallacy or incoherence?     

[ekim]

Poor advice, Alan: Matthew (or whoever it was) is clearly too naive to take seriously.

I hardly think that an adult voluntarily regressing to some childlike state would ever actually work: in fact, I doubt it is even possible to 'change' by deliberately putting to one side years of experience and knowledge so as to become more credulous (and also more vulnerable).  A silly idea.

That's one of the troubles with quoting without showing the context of the quote.  It was in response to a question from a disciple who asked "Who, consequently, is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?" and the following verse to Alan's quote indicates that the 'little child' represents humility.  So it is not about losing years of experience and knowledge but more about humility and losing egotism.  Unfortunately, when you see all the titles and ceremonial robes associated with a religious hierarchy, it doesn't demonstrate it too well.

[Maeght]

That's one of the troubles with quoting without showing the context of the quote.  It was in response to a question from a disciple who asked "Who, consequently, is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?" and the following verse to Alan's quote indicates that the 'little child' represents humility.  So it is not about losing years of experience and knowledge but more about humility and losing egotism.  Unfortunately, when you see all the titles and ceremonial robes associated with a religious hierarchy, it doesn't demonstrate it too well.

How does it represent humility? I see the next bit says 'If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.'. Nice.

[ekim]

How does it represent humility? I see the next bit says 'If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.'. Nice.

I would read the following verses as being about 'snares' that await those attempting the way of  humility.  They can come from others and from your own egotism and you have to be prepared to  be aggressive in your efforts and eliminate what threatens that humility.