Ephesians 2:10

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

[Shermana]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

I'd say yes, I believe the idea that the human form, brain, heart, mind, and all the intricacies involved came about purely from chaotic mutations that stabilized is less credible than the idea of a superior being (aka "god") being responsible for, what appears to me, seems to be similar evidence of design as one would see in. I believe it's irrational to think that all the complex biological processes (and the environment they live in) are the product of anything less than intelligent and designed. I believe to believe that could happen requires a leap of faith leaps and bounds bigger than any Theist argument. I don't see why one cannot rationally view the human body as being "Too complex for random mutation alone".

One problem is that many "believers" may consider something "evidence" to support a rational conclusion that the "non-believer" may shrug off as "god of the gaps" and presume to believe that a naturalistic conclusion is correct in the end. Without the idea of a "god" or "intelligence", one is left with what is otherwise an extremely improbably scenario, when I say extremely I mean like it's more probable that I will win the lottery every time I play. The sheer amount of "Coincidence" that would have to be involved just for the Earth to not spiral into the sun, in my opinion, is too great to be considered credible as the result of "natural forces".

So the issue is what one considers 'evidence" in the first place. The Watchmaker arguments of Leibniz and Newton may not fly with the non-believer, but they fly for the believer. Why? Is Leibniz somehow wrong? Is there an alternative?

I think one issue "non-believers" may feel is of no concern is an alternative. Because their criteria for them to believe in an "intelligent higher force", or the "Unmoved Mover" in Aristotle's version has not met, why is the evidence no longer valid? Why is NOT valid to believe that the evidence seems to suggest design and intelligence in the construction of the human form, let alone the life form in general?

One may associate the "Unmoved Mover" (UM) as an imaginary being without "proof", but what kind of proof do they want? What kind of explanation must one give to show that the human body did not likely "evolve" on its own forces to where it is today? Many "Evolutionists" were Theistic evolutionists, even if you disagree with the ToE and "Macro-evolution" (a subject well discussed on this board), there is still enough reason to conclude that "scientists" and "Naturalists" have not universally ruled out the idea of a higher power directing this alleged "process".

In the end, if one cannot provide an alternative example that addresses all the snags and pitfalls in their own alternative model (and non-fallaciously, as in having the actual data and not relying on unprovable "expert" opinions), their grounds for dismissing one's religion and beliefs is shot. All they can say is "You cannot prove it according to my criteria of evidence". But what is the criteria of evidence? I've asked this question to many Atheists, I've not gotten a real answer of what they'd consider "evidence" yet. Most of them just want an Angel or something to fly down and tell them or something, but I've yet to see Atheist discussion of what they'd consider solid evidence of design in the first place to be, that they wouldn't just brush off as a "naturalistic" explanation even in the face of all the unknown facts and issues and controversies.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

Miss ThatGirlAgain, surely you're aware of how much I 'preciate your intelligence and opinions on this issue, but I'm just not seeing it as you do.

By referring to a specific post in another thread you are implicitly taking on the context of that post.

I disagree, especially as I emboldened the section I sought to consider.

I'm kinda danged if I do and danged if I don't here. I see the other OP as a question regarding man's humanity, and the statement as presented in the OP here as a statement of fact that can and should be addressed on its own merits. Namely, "God created humans".

Does Miss ThatGirlAgain deny that such a statement has ever been uttered in the history of humankind? To me it doesn't matter who said it, but there it sits. I included the poster's name simply because it was that post that induced this'n.

I am sincere in trying not to clutter threads with challenges, as such now appears to have the potential of having me face sanctions. I'm also sincere in trying not to take another poster's comments out of context, as evidenced by linking to such posts in question.

The context of this OP is the matter of whether or not a god has created humans and this OP doesn't care what it means to be human.

Bambi originally made it clear that the answer being presented was in the context of being a Christian and the post you quoted just as clearly maintained that context.

So now we remove the context of what it means to be a Christian, and ask if it's rational to believe a god created humans - regardless of whether it's Christians doing it or not.

Notice, nowhere have I attempted to say that the referenced statement doesn't contain it's own context within that other thread, but I have simply pointed out a small subset of that context, if ya will, in order to examine whether the Christian belief, devoid of any Christian context, has validity (I also leave it open to any other gods folks may wish to mention).

Instead of removing the poster’s name, why not omit the post itself?

Because I seek to determine if the claim presented should be considered rational and logical, based not in a Christian context, as it was presented before, but in an apologetics context.

By taking it out of context you are just coming up with another way of making a “Does God Exist?� thread.

While I don't doubt that showing a god exists may help in regards to supporting the claim presented in the OP, I would respectfully request that you show us all where I have asked folks to do so.

Are you not now taking my presentation out of context? If not, how not?

Such a thread is certainly legitimate if not exactly original.

I don't much care whether an OP is original near as much as I seek to determine if the claims presented within hold validity.

If you want to participate in some original thinking on the subject, go here where the debate covers both what it means to be human (the subject of the thread you quoted from) and the existence of God.

Notice, nowhere in your explanation of what you think that other thread is about do you present the case that it's about showing a god has created humans.

I seek to remove all that other context and concentrate solely on the statement "God created humans". I don't do so in order to better understand the Christian position, as bambi was getting at, because I already understand that is the Christian position, and I contend such would best be presented within TD&D or HH.

I seek to understand the veracity of the one statement. A statement I felt better challenged by presenting it within its own context.

But if you want to talk about the post you quoted, go back to that thread and deal with it in context.

With all respect, and I love ya to death, and I mean that, but I propose that if you want to talk about the stuff within that thread, it should be you returning to it, and that if you wish to talk about the stuff presented in this OP, you do so at your whim.

As it is, I see no legitimate connection between that post and this thread.

Exactly!

The only "legitimate connection" is that the one, singular statement was presented. Now I've singled that one statement out for analysis.

Or, are you proposing that since you see no legitimate connection to that post, that I should risk sanction for presenting what you would then consider an off-topic challenge within that thread (since there's no connection in challenging the statement)?

I can't win here.

I see a claim I seek to challenge, I challenge it within the context I feel the best way to do so, in a new OP and I get got onto.

I challenge the claim within the original thread, and I risk sanction for posting an off-topic challenge (regardless of how on-topic others may think such to be).



Is there some place on this site where it is explicitly and with no ambiguity explained what challenges to Christian claims are acceptable, under what conditions such challenges may be presented, and under what conditions such challenges may or may not be allowed when one is unable to determine whether a challenge is or isn't on topic?

Lacking such, I gotta ask, how come others are allowed to present posts within their own context, but I get a scoldin' when I do?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

I happen to believe that even if I weren't raised in a Christian home, but instead was raised in an atheist home, I would have my doubts about the theory of evolution. One problem I have is that they claim to know this stuff. I know, Christians also claim to know stuff, and I did to, but since reading this site and realizing there are intelligent arguments against Chrisitanity I try hard not to know so much. I believe and have faith, but I don't know. Scientists claim to know what happened. They weren't there, how could they know? They put a rock in the machine and say "this rock is 415 million years old". Then they develope a "better" machine and say about the same rock "This rock is after all only 352 million years old." How could they possibly know? Were they there? This is the problem I have with modern science; too many assumptions, and then they all pat each other on the back and say "Nice Job!" Yes, I have a subscription to Smithsonian magazine.

Okay, so the ToE is inadequate.

What makes the statement (or supporting notions) in the OP adequate?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

It's more like, something exists by necessity, and if volition is involved in that something, then that something is God.

Allowing the premise, which I find a proposition with only vague support, why then should we conclude this god created humans?

Depends on what you mean by "physical form." For example, in your view, does gravity have a "physical form"? Is gravity constrained by space and time? How about logic? Is logic situated within space and time?

All evidence I'm aware of indicates consciousness is a product of the brain, hence, physicality.

Anyway, consciousness is either a meaningless illusion or else it is really and truly something that makes a difference in the world (even if it cannot always be neatly situated within space and time).

Sure.

But where does this leave your notion (if I'm on track) of a conscious entity? Does this entity possess mass? Does it posses a brain - where we have evidence to indicate consciousness there resides?

...A question, by definition, has meaning...

Not if every possible answer to the question is equally meaningless.

Plenty fair.

...I find such use of the term "absurd" to be more indicative of incredulity than reasoned thought, where all that is offered is a rather generic and somewhat ill-defined "volitional non-contingent reality"...

If you can think of even one question where all possible answers are not equally meaningless (given the situation where consciousness and volition are illusory and incapable of affecting the material universe) then I might concede your point.

I fall back to the notion that consciousness has its roots in a physical form and seek to determine if the consciousness you proposed does as well. In this fashion I would further explore how we can determine if such a physical form may be able to create humans "whole cloth".

I suppose another way of making my point would be, "If meaningful questions exist, then theism is the only possible epistemically justified explanation for this fact."

I've read quite a bit of your posts on this issue, finding some compelling notions and some less than compelling notions. For the purposes of the OP, I really don't see how the issue applies.

[ThatGirlAgain]

From Post 10:

Miss ThatGirlAgain, surely you're aware of how much I 'preciate your intelligence and opinions on this issue, but I'm just not seeing it as you do.

By referring to a specific post in another thread you are implicitly taking on the context of that post.

I disagree, especially as I emboldened the section I sought to consider.

I'm kinda danged if I do and danged if I don't here. I see the other OP as a question regarding man's humanity, and the statement as presented in the OP here as a statement of fact that can and should be addressed on its own merits. Namely, "God created humans".

Does Miss ThatGirlAgain deny that such a statement has ever been uttered in the history of humankind? To me it doesn't matter who said it, but there it sits. I included the poster's name simply because it was that post that induced this'n.

I am sincere in trying not to clutter threads with challenges, as such now appears to have the potential of having me face sanctions. I'm also sincere in trying not to take another poster's comments out of context, as evidenced by linking to such posts in question.

The context of this OP is the matter of whether or not a god has created humans and this OP doesn't care what it means to be human.

Bambi originally made it clear that the answer being presented was in the context of being a Christian and the post you quoted just as clearly maintained that context.

So now we remove the context of what it means to be a Christian, and ask if it's rational to believe a god created humans - regardless of whether it's Christians doing it or not.

Notice, nowhere have I attempted to say that the referenced statement doesn't contain it's own context within that other thread, but I have simply pointed out a small subset of that context, if ya will, in order to examine whether the Christian belief, devoid of any Christian context, has validity (I also leave it open to any other gods folks may wish to mention).

Instead of removing the poster’s name, why not omit the post itself?

Because I seek to determine if the claim presented should be considered rational and logical, based not in a Christian context, as it was presented before, but in an apologetics context.

By taking it out of context you are just coming up with another way of making a “Does God Exist?� thread.

While I don't doubt that showing a god exists may help in regards to supporting the claim presented in the OP, I would respectfully request that you show us all where I have asked folks to do so.

Are you not now taking my presentation out of context? If not, how not?

Such a thread is certainly legitimate if not exactly original.

I don't much care whether an OP is original near as much as I seek to determine if the claims presented within hold validity.

If you want to participate in some original thinking on the subject, go here where the debate covers both what it means to be human (the subject of the thread you quoted from) and the existence of God.

Notice, nowhere in your explanation of what you think that other thread is about do you present the case that it's about showing a god has created humans.

I seek to remove all that other context and concentrate solely on the statement "God created humans". I don't do so in order to better understand the Christian position, as bambi was getting at, because I already understand that is the Christian position, and I contend such would best be presented within TD&D or HH.

I seek to understand the veracity of the one statement. A statement I felt better challenged by presenting it within its own context.

But if you want to talk about the post you quoted, go back to that thread and deal with it in context.

With all respect, and I love ya to death, and I mean that, but I propose that if you want to talk about the stuff within that thread, it should be you returning to it, and that if you wish to talk about the stuff presented in this OP, you do so at your whim.

As it is, I see no legitimate connection between that post and this thread.

Exactly!

The only "legitimate connection" is that the one, singular statement was presented. Now I've singled that one statement out for analysis.

Or, are you proposing that since you see no legitimate connection to that post, that I should risk sanction for presenting what you would then consider an off-topic challenge within that thread (since there's no connection in challenging the statement)?

I can't win here.

I see a claim I seek to challenge, I challenge it within the context I feel the best way to do so, in a new OP and I get got onto.

I challenge the claim within the original thread, and I risk sanction for posting an off-topic challenge (regardless of how on-topic others may think such to be).



Is there some place on this site where it is explicitly and with no ambiguity explained what challenges to Christian claims are acceptable, under what conditions such challenges may be presented, and under what conditions such challenges may or may not be allowed when one is unable to determine whether a challenge is or isn't on topic?

Lacking such, I gotta ask, how come others are allowed to present posts within their own context, but I get a scoldin' when I do?

First of all, no sanction is being risked here, just Miss TGA arguing as usual. Mods cannot moderate threads they debate in and nobody made a report anyway, least of all me.

You quote a post that was explicitly stated to be in a Christian context and you name your thread after a Bible verse yet you claim that you are not working in a Christian/Bible context. Within that original context the answer to "how do we know God created people" is simple. Genesis says so. The context you are now stating is “whether or not a god has created humans�. A legitimate topic, but judging from the posts so far it is a specialized subset of “Does God exist?� As I said earlier this is a legitimate topic. But it is a non-Christian topic with the trappings of a Christian one.

My issue is still that referring to an explicit post and naming the thread after a Bible verse but switching contexts comes across as a challenge to the original poster but removing the means for answering that challenge. It sounds a whole lot like:

Statement: “In my religion the Bible says God created people.�

Challenge: “Prove that God created people without using the Bible.�

Do you see why people sometimes get ticked off with you?

Drop the explicit poster and scriptural references and it comes across a whole lot differently.

[EduChris]

...a proposition with only vague support...

Metaphysics and logic are the price of the admission ticket needed to participate in philosophical discussion. Everyone understands that everything that any of us says may have nothing at all to do with objective reality; nevertheless, all we can do is use the only tools available to us. In other words, your skepticism is noted briefly, and then checked at the door so that we can all go on to engage in logical discourse. The alternative is to sit around silently shuffling our feet and shrugging our shoulders.

...why then should we conclude this god created humans?...

Given volitional non-contingent reality, the logical answer to the "Why?" question is the same as for "Why did you eat Cheerios for breakfast, rather than Corn Flakes?" Answer: "Because I wanted to."

Depends on what you mean by "physical form." For example, in your view, does gravity have a "physical form"? Is gravity constrained by space and time? How about logic? Is logic situated within space and time?

All evidence I'm aware of indicates consciousness is a product of the brain, hence, physicality...

But you admit that things like gravity can exist, even without a definite physical form, right? Do you agree that physical form is not a prerequisite for existence? Or do you claim that gravity doesn't exist?

...But where does this leave your notion...of a conscious entity? Does this entity possess mass? Does it posses a brain - where we have evidence to indicate consciousness there resides?...

Does gravity possess mass? Or is it rather the means by which mass can be detected and measured?

The simple fact is that we do not know what causes our subjective mental experience. We don't know whether our subjective mental experience corresponds in any way to objective reality--but if it does, then as rational beings we are compelled to seek some explanation. Given that there is no obvious reason why impersonal physical "stuff" should conglomerate to produce subjective mental experience--especially a subjective mental experience which makes absolutely no difference in the world--it makes sense to suppose that subjective mental experience involves something more than mere matter. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that evolution invested a lot of resources to produce an intricate sound system for an entirely deaf universe.

...If you can think of even one question where all possible answers are not equally meaningless (given the situation where consciousness and volition are illusory and incapable of affecting the material universe) then I might concede your point...

I fall back to the notion that consciousness has its roots in a physical form...

Okay, then I fall back to my previous paragraph.

...I would further explore how we can determine if such a physical form may be able to create humans "whole cloth"...

If gravity can exist without physical form, then it stands to reason that other things can also exist without physical form. Our brains are the result (so we suppose) of evolutionary processes which normally select for some survival advantage. Yet our subjective mental life does not (per standard non-theist principles) offer any such survival advantatge even though it is highly intricate and resource-intensive. These factors combine to suggest that either our subjective mental experience does make a difference in the world (in which case the physical can be affected by the non-physical) or else our subjective mental experience involves something more than mere conglomerations of matter. Either way, theism offers the best and only explanation. Non-theism, by contrast, is left empty-handed without even any hope for an explanation, even in principle.

...If meaningful questions exist, then theism is the only possible epistemically justified explanation for this fact...

...For the purposes of the OP, I really don't see how the issue applies.

It applies because either the question in your OP is meaningless, or else theism is true. Pick your poison. Which do you prefer?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

First of all, no sanction is being risked here, just Miss TGA arguing as usual. Mods cannot moderate threads they debate in and nobody made a report anyway, least of all me.

My concern is of an observer looking back through the threads with what would be future knowledge of a (now pending) sanction for challenging claims. I have the fullest trust you'd abstain from ruling where you've posted.

You quote a post that was explicitly stated to be in a Christian context and you name your thread after a Bible verse yet you claim that you are not working in a Christian/Bible context. Within that original context the answer to "how do we know God created people" is simple. Genesis says so. The context you are now stating is “whether or not a god has created humans�. A legitimate topic, but judging from the posts so far it is a specialized subset of “Does God exist?� As I said earlier this is a legitimate topic. But it is a non-Christian topic with the trappings of a Christian one.

Exactly. So then, without the trappings of Christianity, the OP seeks to explore the lone statement presented - regardless of its "Christian context" by placing it within an apologetics context.

My issue is still that referring to an explicit post and naming the thread after a Bible verse but switching contexts comes across as a challenge to the original poster but removing the means for answering that challenge. It sounds a whole lot like: ...
...

What other section of this site, beyond Christianity & Apologetics, is most appropriate for exploring a statement that's presented in Christianity & Apologetics (noting I could not with objectivity determine its relatedness to the original OP)?

I retract, plow under, weed-eat, disavow, and swear up and down the original poster never uttered a single syllable, much less a string of 'em, and I mean I'm 'shamed of ever havin' accused 'em of it.

Where does that get us now that the claim is hanging out there, but danged if we don't see it right there in the book I let everyone know where it was at?

Statement: “In my religion the Bible says God created people.�

Challenge: “Prove that God created people without using the Bible.�

Nowhere in the OP, or within this thread have I asked folks to prove anything, nor have I stated that the Bible can't be used to support the contention presented in the OP. Present the entire Bible for all I care. Present the Magna Carta if that bolsters your case. Present twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one. Present your entire collection of Mad magazine.

I don't make the rules for this site, I'm in no position to enforce 'em, and I'm getting a good bit frustrated at being repeatedly, across multiple threads, accused of trying to declare - nay, dictate - what others are allowed to say or post.

I've asked why the statement should be considered the most reasonable and rational take on the issue. What's so difficult about that? Showing it is?

Do you see why people sometimes get ticked off with you?

I'm not here to soothe folks' souls. If by my challenging of claims they find discomfort, I can't help 'em a bit, and ain't so sure if I wanna.

Drop the explicit poster and scriptural references and it comes across a whole lot differently.

From your perspective, which could also be considered as from within the context you seek to frame an OP that you, if for all the right reasons, consider invalid merely because it mentions the one that said it, and mentions the biblical passage the one that said it was referring to.


Frankly, I don't care if the Pope said it, nor do I care if the passage comes from the Quran or someone's bathroom reader. I seek to determine if the statement presented in the OP is the most reasoned and rational take on the issue.

But okay, I'm all about being fair...

God created humans

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

...a proposition with only vague support...

Metaphysics and logic are the price of the admission ticket needed to participate in philosophical discussion. Everyone understands that everything that any of us says may have nothing at all to do with objective reality; nevertheless, all we can do is use the only tools available to us. In other words, your skepticism is noted briefly, and then checked at the door so that we can all go on to engage in logical discourse. The alternative is to sit around silently shuffling our feet and shrugging our shoulders.

I like your phrasing. By vague I meant that the conclusion you present does seem rational, but that a 'seem' isn't a "danged if it ain't" (agreeing we may never get to that). Where you consider volition to be involved, with some sound reasoning, I don't see the need to consider such to be a God, especially when so much theology is tacked onto that one deal. So, I'd say I can't refute your definition, but contend that the definition alone shouldn't lead us to conclude this God created humans (as in "whole cloth", or at least as a literal take on what the Bible says, while granting you've alluded to evolution later).

...why then should we conclude this god created humans?...

Given volitional non-contingent reality, the logical answer to the "Why?" question is the same as for "Why did you eat Cheerios for breakfast, rather than Corn Flakes?" Answer: "Because I wanted to."

I wasn't asking the why you offer. I was asking that if we concede your definition, which I agree is reasonable by itself, why should we then conclude this God created humans?

Are you saying the process was "whole cloth", or do you ascribe to a more evolutionary approach?

All evidence I'm aware of indicates consciousness is a product of the brain, hence, physicality...

But you admit that things like gravity can exist, even without a definite physical form, right?

But I don't say gravity is a product of the brain, even if by having mass, the brain will have gravity to some negligible amount.

Do you agree that physical form is not a prerequisite for existence?

I'm not so sure I can just say yes here. What I seek to understand is that as we know consciousness to be a product of the brain, hence physicality, why should we not conclude this volitional agent must posses such?

Where we posit volition, we are ostensibly positing a physical entity, given what we know about thought. So then, we get right back to what created this volitional entity.

I consider the most reasoned conclusion in this regard is that the universe could be considered its own volitional entity under the terms you propose. With this in mind, I'd say then that if we wish to call the universe "god" or "God", we could consider a god as having created humans.

Or do you claim that gravity doesn't exist?

Of course I consider gravity to exist. What I question is this notion that volition could ostensibly spring from the ether.

...But where does this leave your notion...of a conscious entity? Does this entity possess mass? Does it posses a brain - where we have evidence to indicate consciousness there resides?...

Does gravity possess mass? Or is it rather the means by which mass can be detected and measured?

The issue for me is one of thought, which is volition. I'm unaware of anyone who claims gravity to plot and plan.

The simple fact is that we do not know what causes our subjective mental experience.

There's some good indication that such resides within the brain.

We don't know whether our subjective mental experience corresponds in any way to objective reality--but if it does, then as rational beings we are compelled to seek some explanation. Given that there is no obvious reason why impersonal physical "stuff" should conglomerate to produce subjective mental experience...

I contend that chemicals combine to create this mental experience. This, if only to me, would be an obvious reason.

--especially a subjective mental experience which makes absolutely no difference in the world--it makes sense to suppose that subjective mental experience involves something more than mere matter. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that evolution invested a lot of resources to produce an intricate sound system for an entirely deaf universe.

I propose evolution worked to produce a means by which a not mute universe may be heard.

...If you can think of even one question where all possible answers are not equally meaningless (given the situation where consciousness and volition are illusory and incapable of affecting the material universe) then I might concede your point...

I fall back to the notion that consciousness has its roots in a physical form...

Okay, then I fall back to my previous paragraph.

I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.
[Edit]
Are you falling back to the statement presented here, or another'n?
[/Edit]

...I would further explore how we can determine if such a physical form may be able to create humans "whole cloth"...

If gravity can exist without physical form...

Best I can tell, without some physical form, there is no gravity. Gravity would then be the product of a physical form, if only tangentially.

...then it stands to reason that other things can also exist without physical form.

Yet we have sound evidence for concluding that thought, as volition, doesn't occur without the physical brain.

Our brains are the result (so we suppose) of evolutionary processes which normally select for some survival advantage. Yet our subjective mental life does not (per standard non-theist principles) offer any such survival advantage even though it is highly intricate and resource-intensive.

The ToE doesn't explicitly state that all that composes a life form must be advantageous. Regardless, where we see a resource intensive item such as the brain, we can also reasonably conclude that some redundancy would be built in, and such redundancy could then be used to do other things, such as contemplation.

These factors combine to suggest that either our subjective mental experience does make a difference in the world (in which case the physical can be affected by the non-physical) or else our subjective mental experience involves something more than mere conglomerations of matter. Either way, theism offers the best and only explanation.

This sounds an argument from incredulity. What we know, or reasonably conclude, is that the brain is where our thoughts are stored, and that such thoughts could not take form without the physical brain being there.

Non-theism, by contrast, is left empty-handed without even any hope for an explanation, even in principle.

I think I just put something in the non-theists hands above.

It applies because either the question in your OP is meaningless, or else theism is true.

The question is, is it reasonable to conclude a god created humans. Thus far I've seen you propose a volitional entity that I contend would require some form of physicality. As such, we start to wonder if this entity has physicality, then what caused that physicality.

Pick your poison. Which do you prefer?

Positing a volitional agent without physical form is, I contend, not a rational argument. As such, we're then left to ponder what created that agent.

[EduChris]

...I like your phrasing...

Thanks!

...I don't see the need to consider such to be a God...

I'll address this a little later.

...Are you saying the process was "whole cloth", or do you ascribe to a more evolutionary approach?...

The "How?" question makes no difference to my worldview; what matters to me is the "Why?" question. In my worldview, God is not arbitrarily limited in causal efficacy, and so God chooses whatever means God deems best, all things considered.

...we know consciousness to be a product of the brain, hence physicality...

I'm not sure we know this at all. Most non-theists end up believing consciousness to be an ineffectual, impotent, ephemeral epiphenomenon which makes no difference at all in the world. To believe otherwise, we have to suppose that consciousness is somehow "more than" the sum of the physical parts.

...why should we not conclude this volitional agent must posses such [physicality]?...

What is "physicality" anyway? It is mostly empty space, with a few poorly understood bursts of concentrated energy. If "physicality" is so important, why is there so very little of it? And as mentioned in the previous paragraph, if consciousness makes a difference at all in the world, it has to be more than the simple sum of its physical parts, such that it can turn the causal arrow around and work back on the physical.

...what created this volitional entity...

We are not talking about an "entity" which could be "created." Rather, we are talking about that which cannot not exist, and we are considering the possibilities which would ensue whether or not volition is involved in that which cannot not exist. Now you can always say, "There isn't any such thing as that which cannot not exist," but there are consequences to that assumption, which I will get to shortly.

...the universe could be considered its own volitional entity under the terms you propose...

The problem here is that our physical universe doesn't seem a likely candidate for that which cannot not exist. The universe appears to have had a beginning, and there seems to be no logical contradiction involved in the statement, "The universe doesn't have to exist."

...What I question is this notion that volition could ostensibly spring from the ether...

According to your worldview, volition sprang from slime, which is not much more than empty space, which all started out as a big explosion where all known physical laws break down.

The simple fact is that we do not know what causes our subjective mental experience.

There's some good indication that such resides within the brain...

Actually, not so much. It seems that subjective mental experience (SME) does not reduce down to the simple physical interactions in the brain. SME is something entirely new that occurs, such as when hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to produce water, which is very unlike the individual atoms taken separately. Yes, water is still "physical," but then water can be weighed and measured and heated and frozen in a way which we cannot do with SME, which seems quite different from anything else at all in the entire universe.

...I contend that chemicals combine to create this mental experience. This, if only to me, would be an obvious reason...

You are free to contend whatever you wish. The question is, how can we explain such a contention?

...I propose evolution worked to produce a means by which a not mute universe may be heard...

So evolution works toward some specific goal?

...without some physical form, there is no gravity. Gravity would then be the product of a physical form, if only tangentially...

Assumption noted.

...we have sound evidence for concluding that thought, as volition, doesn't occur without the physical brain...

How would we know whether consciousness, thought, and volition do not occur without a physical brain?

Given that the physical brain is mostly empty space, with a few poorly understood bursts of concentrated energy, why should it be unreasonable to suppose that science might one day (far down the road) advance to the point where we have intelligent, conscious "computers" comprised of pure energy and virtual quantum particles? Why should we not be able to download every last bit of information inside our brains to these "computers"? I'm not saying that this would ever happen, but I am asking, "Is it really that hard to believe, at least in principle?" After all, if blind nature can cobble together something as magnificent as the brain, why should science not be able to improve on nature's handiwork?

...The ToE doesn't explicitly state that all that composes a life form must be advantageous. Regardless, where we see a resource intensive item such as the brain, we can also reasonably conclude that some redundancy would be built in, and such redundancy could then be used to do other things, such as contemplation...

So evolution selects for "contemplation"? I thought evolution selects for adaptive behavior! Do you believe that SME (subjective mental experience) actually leads to adaptive behavior? Most non-theists believe it is the ephemeral illusion which arises from physical processes that do whatever it is that they do quite apart from the epiphenomenon of SME.

...an argument from incredulity. What we know, or reasonably conclude, is that the brain is where our thoughts are stored, and that such thoughts could not take form without the physical brain being there...The question is, is it reasonable to conclude a god created humans. Thus far I've seen you propose a volitional entity that I contend would require some form of physicality. As such, we start to wonder if this entity has physicality, then what caused that physicality...Positing a volitional agent without physical form is, I contend, not a rational argument...

Okay, we're finally down to the heart of the matter. I'm going to get back to this question in my next post, when I have time. But for now, at least you have some of my preliminary responses/objections to some of the points you raise.

[Xian Pugilist]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

Reasonable, able to reason a conclusion regarding...

Rational, able to think it out logically.

Reason, is determined by our observations and knowledge.
Rational is determined by our particular "logic".

IF there is a creator God, as the faith's you question presents, then said God would live outside the creation. Being supra/supernatural would not be bound in the laws within the creation, so would be outside of the reasoning and rationalizing we have.

So, yes it's unreasonable.

Let me flip the question to you, In the late 400 bce a dude named Democritus resolved that if you continued dividing a piece of matter in half, you would get smaller and smaller until you couldn't see it and he called that last and final piece ATOM.

Aristotle (tutor of Alexendar known as the Great) foofooed the idea and it went away. Since it was unreasonable at the time, and irrational at the time, does that mean it didn't exist? Did Atom's only exist after man could comprehend them? You know the answer isn't yes.

So the answer is, it may be irrational, and unreasonable, but that doesn't exclude Him from being. We simply haven't amassed an ability to find Him, prove Him, etc... I don't see it ever happening, but, I'm quite sure of His existance.

Is that a fair question?