Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 3845440 times)

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18255
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51600 on: November 08, 2024, 07:17:17 AM »
As I inferred previously,
We are not just considering one highly improbable event.

The initial fine tuning of the universe to allow the formation of stars and planets is just the beginning of the preparations required before many more improbable events are needed to bring life into existence.
You may claim that bringing the unfathomable complexity of life into existence requires no intentional guidance and that it can all be achieved by the unintended consequences of random events.
My own intelligence tells me that our existence is evidence of a creative force beyond our comprehension, and that human creativity must be inherited from this force.

Try thinking of the probability that I could win the lottery every week for the rest of my days, and that my offspring continue the winning streak for the next few thousand years if that helps.

It seems that you are permanently marooned on Fallacy Island: where the incredulity roams free, where there are layers of consequences to distract you and where the air is suffused with ignorance.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2024, 08:10:07 AM by Gordon »

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33166
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51601 on: November 08, 2024, 09:43:52 AM »
Vlad,

It's not an argument at all - rather it's just a statement of all we can say when we run out of knowledge. It's a recognition of human ignorance, not an explanation for the universe. 

The difference between "the universe just is" and "god just is" by the way is that the universe observably exists, whereas "god" is just a speculation (epistemologically equivalent to leprechauns) at best.   
Hillside! Welcome back. If there was an Internet equivalent of killing the fitted calf to celebrate the return of the prodigal I'd be doing it now.
Is this return a reprise of your greatest hits or will you be showcasing any new material?

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33166
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51602 on: November 08, 2024, 12:25:51 PM »
I think that the point you are trying to make, albeit rather clunkily, is that to compare 'the Universe' with 'God' is a category error because, as far as we know, the former is a naturalistic entity (with observable and measurable empirical processes) and the latter is a supernatural claim (about which any claimed attributes are presumptive and not empirically verifiable). If that is indeed what you are saying then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
I think I would say with some minor reservations that that is fair.
Quote
However, since it seems that you see this 'God' as a necessary precursor of 'the Universe' then the category error, as noted above, still applies: so you remain up the creek without a proverbial paddle.
I don’t believe I’ve mentioned so far in this contribution the word God. However the very definition of contingency demands the idea of necessity as does Occam’s razor.
So for the purposes of this I am offering something which satisfies the phenomenon of contingency and to which the only alternative can be nothing...which definitionally does not exist.

I need to remind you that your definition of supernatural encompasses real infinities, circular causation, popping out of nothing, an actual nothing, eternal universe, multiple universe. To these imo we must also add the miracle of the principle of sufficient reason spontaneously ceasing to apply.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33166
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51603 on: November 08, 2024, 12:37:00 PM »
That looks like a reasonable question, but it isn't. Given that the universe exists, it has to have some set of vales, so why not the ones it does have? Your question is like watching the lottery and asking "Why did those six numbers come up, and not another six?". If you win a double-rollover jackpot, you may well think something other than chance is operating, but it is still pure chance.
I’m not sure we don’t have the right to ask why or how come those numbers came up because I’m sure it reduces to physics.
In a lottery all those values are available. But available to who or what?
Similarly the number 1000 000 never comes up on a lottery ball.

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18255
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51604 on: November 08, 2024, 12:42:26 PM »
I don’t believe I’ve mentioned so far in this contribution the word God. However the very definition of contingency demands the idea of necessity as does Occam’s razor.

So you are open to the idea that if there is some form of necessary agent it may not be the 'God' you worship?  If so, then presumably you think it possible that this 'God' is contingent on something else.

Quote
So for the purposes of this I am offering something which satisfies the phenomenon of contingency and to which the only alternative can be nothing...which definitionally does not exist.

Perhaps you are undervaluing 'nothing'.

Quote
I need to remind you that your definition of supernatural encompasses real infinities, circular causation, popping out of nothing, an actual nothing, eternal universe, multiple universe. To these imo we must also add the miracle of the principle of sufficient reason spontaneously ceasing to apply.

Nope - as things stand, and subject to more information becoming available, I would tend to see, for example, another universe (should there be one) as being a naturalistic phenomenon and not anything supernatural.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33166
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51605 on: November 08, 2024, 12:44:41 PM »
Vlad,

No it isn't. To be "reasonable" the claim must be justified with reasons that are sound. So far, you haven't produced any.
I seemed to recall you yourself endorsed simulated universe theory but you also endorsed suspending the principle of sufficient reason at a juncture critical for your agnosticism.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33166
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51606 on: November 08, 2024, 12:47:04 PM »
Vlad,

It's not an argument at all - rather it's just a statement of all we can say when we run out of knowledge. It's a recognition of human ignorance, not an explanation for the universe. 

The difference between "the universe just is" and "god just is" by the way is that the universe observably exists, whereas "god" is just a speculation (epistemologically equivalent to leprechauns) at best.   
I’m not sure ignorance trumps reasoned argument.

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10202
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51607 on: November 08, 2024, 03:13:04 PM »
AB,

Oh dear. OK, imagine that we give the unlikeliness of the series of improbable events necessary for your existence the value n (n being an unfathomably vast number). Now imagine just as a thought experiment that we design a lottery in which the chance of winning is equally improbable – ie also value n. To put it another way, imagine the chance of you existing are a bajillion bajillion bajillion to one, and the chance of winning our lottery is also a bajillion bajillion bajillion to one.   

Still with me? Good.

Now imagine that the lottery winner inferred that there must therefore have been some sort of intervention for little old him to win. Would he be right about that, or would he just be the lucky recipient of an outcome-blind process that neither knew nor cared who would win?   

Can you see now why your existence – no matter how unlikely – does not imply that there was therefore a guiding hand to make it so unless your existence was also the plan all along – ie, unless your conclusion “god” also had the same premise “god”?

And can you see too how an argument in which the premise and the conclusion are the same thing is a false argument?
I see no false arguments or circular reasoning.
I do not need to have the premise of God to see that something is an obvious impossibility.
You may continue to put your faith in what can be achieved by random unguided events.
I put my faith in the power of the ultimate source which brought everything into existence.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51608 on: November 08, 2024, 03:50:32 PM »
I am not talking about a single improbable event.  There will be countless improbable events needed to bring intelligent, self aware beings into existence.

On what basis are you determining that they are improbable? What's the maths there? How many chances were there for something to happen, and in how many instances does that actually happen?

And even if that is an improbable sequence, how many iterations have there been to decide that one is improbable. Is it improbable that we've had at least one or that we've apparently only had one. We lack sufficient perspective to make that determination.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5675
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51609 on: November 08, 2024, 07:53:07 PM »
I see no false arguments or circular reasoning.
I do not need to have the premise of God to see that something is an obvious impossibility.
You may continue to put your faith in what can be achieved by random unguided events.
I put my faith in the power of the ultimate source which brought everything into existence.

Personal incredulity strikes again.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19455
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51610 on: November 08, 2024, 11:43:09 PM »
AB,

Quote
I see no false arguments or circular reasoning.

As I’ve explained to you your false arguments and circular reasoning several times now, why not?

Quote
I do not need to have the premise of God to see that something is an obvious impossibility.

Yes you do. If you don’t insert a purposive god a priori to intend you to be the outcome all along there’s nothing particularly remarkable about your existence vs the existence of anything else. Why are you struggling so to grasp this simple point? 

Quote
You may continue to put your faith in what can be achieved by random unguided events.

It’s not “faith”, it’s basic logic.

Quote
I put my faith in the power of the ultimate source which brought everything into existence.

I know you do, but you also rely on some very bad reasoning to justify that. That’s your problem.

Again: would the lottery winner be entitled to believe that events must have been guided in his favour? Why do you keep running way from this question?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2024, 11:45:33 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
"Don't make me come down there."

God

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19455
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51611 on: November 09, 2024, 02:02:22 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
Hillside! Welcome back. If there was an Internet equivalent of killing the fitted calf to celebrate the return of the prodigal I'd be doing it now.

Thanks (I think),

Quote
Is this return a reprise of your greatest hits or will you be showcasing any new material?

There are only so many ways to explain without rebuttal why 2+2 does not equal 5.

Quote
Similarly the number 1000 000 never comes up on a lottery ball.

It does if there are 1,000,000 sequentially numbered facets on the ball and it’s rolled often enough.

Quote
I seemed to recall you yourself endorsed simulated universe theory but you also endorsed suspending the principle of sufficient reason at a juncture critical for your agnosticism.

Then you recall wrongly.
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64154
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51612 on: November 09, 2024, 02:19:09 PM »
Vlad,

Thanks (I think),

There are only so many ways to explain without rebuttal why 2+2 does not equal 5.

It does if there are 1,000,000 sequentially numbered facets on the ball and it’s rolled often enough.

Then you recall wrongly.
What Vlad means by 'recall is 'pulled fresh minted from my arse'

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10202
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51613 on: November 09, 2024, 04:59:40 PM »
AB,

As I’ve explained to you your false arguments and circular reasoning several times now, why not?
My arguments are based on evidence and logic
Quote
Yes you do. If you don’t insert a purposive god a priori to intend you to be the outcome all along there’s nothing particularly remarkable about your existence vs the existence of anything else. Why are you struggling so to grasp this simple point? 
But it is you who are using the circular argument

You start with the premise that there is no God, then you use this premise to try to dismiss any evidence or God.
for example:
Fine tuning cannot happen because there is no God to do it.
The specific sequence of events needed to bring life into existence were unintended consequences which just happened because there is no God.
Any evidence for miracles can be dismissed because there is no God.
The universe must have brought itself into existence because there is no God.
Our freedom to control our own thoughts cannot be true because we have no soul.
Any historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus can be dismissed because there is no God.
Sassy's opening post on this thread is so true, because instead of searching for God with an open mind, you are seeking reasons to dismiss any evidence on the premise that God cannot exist.
Open your eyes - the truth is there to be seen, and it really will set you free!
Quote

Again: would the lottery winner be entitled to believe that events must have been guided in his favour? Why do you keep running way from this question?
Trying to compare the events which brought you into existence with a lottery win really is clutching at straws.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2024, 03:38:12 PM by Alan Burns »
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19455
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51614 on: November 09, 2024, 06:44:09 PM »
AB,

Quote
My arguments are based on evidence and logic

Every attempt you make at evidence and logic collapses immediately under the weight of its demonstrable wrongness. Either you don’t have the first idea about how to frame a logically sound argument, or you’re so brain-addled by your religious convictions that you knowingly get them arse-backwards in the hope that others won’t spot your mistakes.

I’ve explained to you several times now why your fine-tuning arguments is circular reasoning – it only (sort of) works if your premise and your conclusion are the same. Why won’t you at least try to address the problem this gives you?     

Quote
But it is you who are using the circular argument

You can’t just assert that – you need to demonstrate where the supposed circularity lies. Good luck with that though.

Quote
You start with the premise that there is no God, then you use this premise to try to dismiss any evidence or God.

Wrong again. I don’t need to think either that there is a god or that there isn’t a god to identify the various fallacies on which your arguments rely. Even if I was a fully paid up theist your multiple errors in reasoning would still be apparent to me.

Quote
for example:
Fine tuning cannot happen because there is no God to do it.

Wrong again. Fine tuning is a bad argument because it’s circular – it depends on the premise you’re also trying to prove.
 
Quote
The specific sequence of events needed to bring life into existence were unintended consequences which just happened because there is no God.

Wrong again. They just happened but there’s nothing remarkable about that unless you also demonstrate that to have been the plan to begin with.   

Quote
Any evidence for miracles can be dismissed because there is no God.

Wrong again. Any attempt at such “evidence” fails because it falls short of even the basic tests for historicity. 

Quote
The universe must have brought itself into existence because there is no God.

Wrong again. You can’t solve the mystery of origin of the universe by inserting a place marker you call "god" and claiming “it’s magic innit” to get you off the same hook.

Quote
Our freedom to control our own thoughts cannot be true because we have no soul.

Wrong again. “Our freedom to control our own thoughts” is illusory because it’s logically impossible. Just inserting a magic “soul” with no justifying evidence for it doesn’t fix that.
 
Quote
Any historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus can be dismissed because there is no God.

Wrong again. They can be dismissed because they’re not “historical evidence” – that’s why they’re taught in RE classes but not in history classes.
 
Quote
Sassy's opening post on this tread is so true, because instead of searching for God with an open mind, you are seeking reasons to dismiss any evidence on the premise that God cannot exist.

Wrong again. Do you search for leprechauns with an open mind? Why not? You can’t “search” for something when the proposition is incoherent.
 
Quote
Open your eyes - the truth is there to be seen, and it really will set you free!

Such a pity you have no grasp of irony.

Quote
Trying to compare the events which brought you into existence with a lottery win really is clutching at straws.

Such a pity you have no grasp of analogies either. Is there any point at all in explaining to you yet again how analogies actually work? Would you complain that I was clutching at straws by comparing people with needles if I said “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack”? Why not?

Would it really kill you just for once to try at least to grasp what’s actually being said to you rather than endlessly to commit mistakes that would embarrass even an averagely bright twelve-year old? Would it though?     
« Last Edit: November 09, 2024, 10:16:54 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18255
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51615 on: November 09, 2024, 06:49:55 PM »
My arguments are based on evidence and logicBut it is you who are using the circular argument

You start with the premise that there is no God, then you use this premise to try to dismiss any evidence or God.
for example:
Fine tuning cannot happen because there is no God to do it.
The specific sequence of events needed to bring life into existence were unintended consequences which just happened because there is no God.
Any evidence for miracles can be dismissed because there is no God.
The universe must have brought itself into existence because there is no God.
Our freedom to control our own thoughts cannot be true because we have no soul.
Any historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus can be dismissed because there is no God.
Sassy's opening post on this tread is so true, because instead of searching for God with an open mind, you are seeking reasons to dismiss any evidence on the premise that God cannot exist.
Open your eyes - the truth is there to be seen, and it really will set you free!Trying to compare the events which brought you into existence with a lottery win really is clutching at straws.

I'd say, Alan, if you'd just pause just for a moment and think, that you should understand that no atheists here (inc. me) are claiming there is no God: they are simply saying that there are no good reasons to think that there is a God.

No amount of fallacious nonsense, as in your post quoted above, makes a case for 'God' that is worth even cursory consideration. If you are citing Sassy as an 'authority' then you are truly lost to all reason.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2024, 07:05:42 PM by Gordon »

Enki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3870
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51616 on: November 09, 2024, 08:55:24 PM »
My arguments are based on evidence and logicBut it is you who are using the circular argument

You start with the premise that there is no God, then you use this premise to try to dismiss any evidence or God.
for example:
Fine tuning cannot happen because there is no God to do it.
The specific sequence of events needed to bring life into existence were unintended consequences which just happened because there is no God.
Any evidence for miracles can be dismissed because there is no God.
The universe must have brought itself into existence because there is no God.
Our freedom to control our own thoughts cannot be true because we have no soul.
Any historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus can be dismissed because there is no God.
Sassy's opening post on this tread is so true, because instead of searching for God with an open mind, you are seeking reasons to dismiss any evidence on the premise that God cannot exist.
Open your eyes - the truth is there to be seen, and it really will set you free!Trying to compare the events which brought you into existence with a lottery win really is clutching at straws.

You seem to be simply putting up a strawman("You start  with the premise that there is no God"). In my case(as I'm sure with others), as I've told you many times before, I don't deny the possibility of a god(s) and therefore I don't dismiss anything on the crude assertion that there is no god. Hence I don't dismiss out of hand any of your so called evidence for God. I simply hold that for any of the points you make either there are other explanations which do not need a god or that the evidence is particularly suspect/weak or that logic and rationality don't support your reasoning.

As far as I can tell it is you who are the one who is a slave to your own biases in favour of God so as not to be able to make a balanced judgement. For instance you often simply make assertions with no reasoning or evidence to back them up and then find it unbelievable that anyone can't agree with you. It smacks of incredulity or dishonesty on your part, neither of which is conducive to an open and honest discussion, I'm afraid.
Sometimes I wish my first word was 'quote,' so that on my death bed, my last words could be 'end quote.'
Steven Wright

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51617 on: November 09, 2024, 11:08:38 PM »
My arguments are based on evidence and logic

Braveheart is based on a true story, but it doesn't use the true story very much. Similarly, your arguments might be based on evidence and logic....

Quote
You start with the premise that there is no God, then you use this premise to try to dismiss any evidence or God.

No. You don't start with a premise at all. You start with the evidence, and you proceed to a conclusion from that. Not assuming god is not 'the premise that there is no god' any more than it's the premise there aren't witches, unicorns or pan-dimensional cheese thieves.

Quote
Fine tuning cannot happen because there is no God to do it.

No, fine tuning might be happening, but the evidence available doesn't support that conclusion. In order to demonstrate fine tuning you'd have to establish a basis for presuming that this particulary format for reality was in some way pre-ordained or intended. You - and others - have failed to establish the evidence for that, and so it remains at best a conjecture.

Quote
The specific sequence of events needed to bring life into existence were unintended consequences which just happened because there is no God.

No. The specific sequence of events for which we have evidence can be the result of unguided physical forces. There is no evidence of an intention, and therefore, purely from Occam's Razor, to introduce a sentient guide to the process is unnecessary. It's not been disproven, but it's not necessary to explain the evidence, either.

Quote
Any evidence for miracles can be dismissed because there is no God.

If you have evidence it's not a 'miracle', that's the whole point of miracles, they are claims without an explanation. In the absence of an explanation you assert 'God'. Every single 'miracle' is equally as applicable as evidence for The Beyonder, or Desartes' Demon as it is for a god, let alone your God.

Quote
The universe must have brought itself into existence because there is no God.

We have evidence for the universe. We have explanations for how a significant portion of the elements of the universe have come to be without recourse to the non-explanation of 'God'. We have no evidence for God. I don't know that anyone is suggesting that the universe brought itself into existence, I do know of people that operate on the assumption it's some sort of spontaneous physical event.

Quote
Our freedom to control our own thoughts cannot be true because we have no soul.

The notion of free will makes no sense in and of itself. It's self-contradictory by definition, even before we get to the physical evidence that shows us that's not how our brains work. Adding a 'soul' into the argument doesn't resolve in the inherently flawed nature of the concept, it just moves where you think that paradox is happening from the brain, which we can show is there, to a soul which we can't.

Quote
Any historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus can be dismissed because there is no God.

No. The historical evidence for the life and death of Jesus is, broadly, accepted as evidence of someone probably existing. The tales of magic and resurrection of Jesus are put in the same bracket as the stories of the magic and resurrection of Gandalf (but turned into much worse films) - they are not sufficient evidence to support the spectacular claims. Old preacher lived and was executed by the Romans is a tale that doesn't need a huge amount of justification; magic is real needs something more than a second-rate fantasy story to justifiy its acceptance.

Quote
Sassy's opening post on this tread is so true, because instead of searching for God with an open mind, you are seeking reasons to dismiss any evidence on the premise that God cannot exist.

I'm not obliged to search for God at all. I'm not here because I'm curious about the possibility, I left that behind long, long ago. I'm here because religion is dangerous, because accepting certain claims as true without, or even despite, evidence undermines the progress humanity has been making, and because the notion of 'sacred' needs to be challenged whenever it's raised.

Quote
Open your eyes - the truth is there to be seen, and it really will set you free!

I'm minded of the phrase 'when you're looking at the world through rose tinted glasses, the red flags just look like flags'. That's your 'evidence'.

Quote
Trying to compare the events which brought you into existence with a lottery win really is clutching at straws.

Whereas pushing second-rate Merlin and his Authoritarian Sky-Fairy's 'Slavery's fine, nothing to say about rape, but lay off the shellfish and haircuts' Big Boy's Book of Bedtime Stories is just fucking peachy, apparently.

O.

[/quote]
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10202
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51618 on: November 09, 2024, 11:25:47 PM »


Wrong again. “Our freedom to control our own thoughts” is illusory because it’s logically impossible. Just inserting a magic “soul” with no justifying evidence for it doesn’t fix that.
 
In view of your demonstrable ability to consciously seek reasons to deny every point I make aptly shows this "logical impossibility" to be a reality.  :)
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19455
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51619 on: November 09, 2024, 11:29:17 PM »
AB,

Quote
In view of your demonstrable ability to consciously seek reasons to deny every point I make aptly shows this "logical impossibility" to be a reality.  :)

There is no such "demonstrable ability" in the way you mean it, as you'd know if you bothered ever to address the arguments that explain that to you. 
"Don't make me come down there."

God

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10208
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51620 on: November 10, 2024, 07:48:43 AM »
In view of your demonstrable ability to consciously seek reasons to deny every point I make aptly shows this "logical impossibility" to be a reality.  :)

This doesn't demonstrate an ability to 'control' our thoughts in the sense that you use it. We have the thoughts that we get, but we cannot choose which thoughts to have. And since we cannot rewind time we cannot demonstrate that we 'could have' chosen to have a different thought come to mind. The reality of how minds work does not align with your simplistic claims about it.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33166
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51621 on: November 10, 2024, 09:28:45 AM »
So you are open to the idea that if there is some form of necessary agent it may not be the 'God' you worship?  If so, then presumably you think it possible that this 'God' is contingent on something else.

Perhaps you are undervaluing 'nothing'.

Nope - as things stand, and subject to more information becoming available, I would tend to see, for example, another universe (should there be one) as being a naturalistic phenomenon and not anything supernatural.
The argument for the necessary entity is not an argument for Christianity. Some argue that it is not an argument for theism. But I think few would argues that it is an argument against theism.

What you have to decide is how the necessary entity fits into naturalism and atheism given that pursuing thought as to what the necessary entity must be like leads us to conclude that

It must be singular
It cannot be composite
It’s actions aren’t controlled or conditioned or determined by chance or external law
Everything is dependent for it’s existence on this entity.

If your definition of natural is that which is observationally verifiable then You need to justify your belief that some things which are not observationally verifiable are naturalistic.

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8977
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51622 on: November 10, 2024, 09:49:56 AM »
I'm not obliged to search for God at all. I'm not here because I'm curious about the possibility, I left that behind long, long ago. I'm here because religion is dangerous, because accepting certain claims as true without, or even despite, evidence undermines the progress humanity has been making, and because the notion of 'sacred' needs to be challenged whenever it's raised.

O.
Religion can be dangerous and it is good to flag its dangers but it is also very useful in motivating and uniting people to fight threats - both cultural threats or even physical threats such as armies and missiles, which are as dangerous as religion, and are often touted as human progress.

Religion is just one tool to both oppress and free people - humans have plenty of others. Since religion can be harnessed to fight oppression, and I'm not saying I don't get atheist perspectives on this (I do - having been an atheist), I prefer the "mixed blessing" of religion in the world as I believe we need to a system of checks and balances and religion can be a very useful check on human rapacity ....along with the other "7 deadly sins" if we're going to use Christian religious terminology  ;)
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64154
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51623 on: November 10, 2024, 10:58:10 AM »
Religion can be dangerous and it is good to flag its dangers but it is also very useful in motivating and uniting people to fight threats - both cultural threats or even physical threats such as armies and missiles, which are as dangerous as religion, and are often touted as human progress.

Religion is just one tool to both oppress and free people - humans have plenty of others. Since religion can be harnessed to fight oppression, and I'm not saying I don't get atheist perspectives on this (I do - having been an atheist), I prefer the "mixed blessing" of religion in the world as I believe we need to a system of checks and balances and religion can be a very useful check on human rapacity ....along with the other "7 deadly sins" if we're going to use Christian religious terminology  ;)
I think both Outrider's, and to a lesser extent for post, see religion as something outside of humans. It is, as I think your post hints at, merely a manifestation of a number of traits, such as tribalism, pattern recognition, desire to continue to exist, that were they to be somehow removed would mean that the concept of humanity would be so racially different as to be unrecognisable. One could replace religion in Outroder's comments with politics, and it would make as much sense.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64154
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #51624 on: November 10, 2024, 11:05:53 AM »
The argument for the necessary entity is not an argument for Christianity. Some argue that it is not an argument for theism. But I think few would argues that it is an argument against theism.

What you have to decide is how the necessary entity fits into naturalism and atheism given that pursuing thought as to what the necessary entity must be like leads us to conclude that

It must be singular
It cannot be composite
It’s actions aren’t controlled or conditioned or determined by chance or external law
Everything is dependent for it’s existence on this entity.

If your definition of natural is that which is observationally verifiable then You need to justify your belief that some things which are not observationally verifiable are naturalistic.
'lead us to conclude' is actually 'I have asserted with no reasoning', and is based on an assuming the conclusion of anything necessary.