Definition of God

[JoeyKnothead]

I won't name the source, cause it was offered in the spirit of explanation moreso than outright fact, but let's fuss on it all the same:

...
For a general definition of God, "the underlying source of all else which exists"...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm God is the underlying source of all else which exists.

Remember, the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site .

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #118

The fingers actually point at the Theist side. Cosmic consciousness is not just an unproven hypothesis but an intelligent entity that has no origin according to you. Whereas a nothing that acts as something coming from a nothing posits less logical entities than a nothing that becomes something and then an intelligence. Finger points at you.

Let me see if I understand this. You seem to be arguing that something can come from nothing because nothing doesn't have to posit anything for something to come from.

That finger is so irrational, it points at itself.

I'm not positing a cosmic consciousness as "a nothing that becomes something"; I'm positing it as a something which has always been.

No, that's not it. The argument in that - yes something from nothing does seen counter -intuitive, if not illogical, but, if so, a God coming from nothing is even more so because the origin of matter not only has to be explained but an intelligent matter, as intelligence requires some electric -type power which is particles.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #118

The fingers actually point at the Theist side. Cosmic consciousness is not just an unproven hypothesis but an intelligent entity that has no origin according to you. Whereas a nothing that acts as something coming from a nothing posits less logical entities than a nothing that becomes something and then an intelligence. Finger points at you.

Let me see if I understand this. You seem to be arguing that something can come from nothing because nothing doesn't have to posit anything for something to come from.

That finger is so irrational, it points at itself.

I'm not positing a cosmic consciousness as "a nothing that becomes something"; I'm positing it as a something which has always been.

The idea that everything came from nothing is an appeal to magic. It doesn't matter if it is theists or non-theists who claim that everything came from nothing, it is still appealing to magic.

No, it isn't. It is saying that some physical process has to be involved, though physics is still groping towards what it could be. Irrational though it sounds it is less irrational than either infinite recession or an eternal uncreated cosmic matter or - yet more to explain -and intelligent uncreated cosmic matter., Aka 'God'.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #121

No, that's not it. The argument in that - yes something from nothing does seen counter -intuitive, if not illogical, but, if so, a God coming from nothing is even more so because the origin of matter not only has to be explained but an intelligent matter, as intelligence requires some electric -type power which is particles.

You're still trying to make that strawman stand up. Again---I am not postulating a God coming from nothing. I am postulating a God who has always existed.

And even if I were arguing for a God coming from nothing [which, again, I'm not], how is it that a God coming from nothing is logically impossible but anything else coming from nothing is just "counter-intuitive"?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #120

The idea that everything came from nothing is an appeal to magic. It doesn't matter if it is theists or non-theists who claim that everything came from nothing, it is still appealing to magic.

Actually it isn't even that, because if you start with nothing, you don't even have magic to appeal to.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #121

No, that's not it. The argument in that - yes something from nothing does seen counter -intuitive, if not illogical, but, if so, a God coming from nothing is even more so because the origin of matter not only has to be explained but an intelligent matter, as intelligence requires some electric -type power which is particles.

You're still trying to make that strawman stand up. Again---I am not postulating a God coming from nothing. I am postulating a God who has always existed.

And even if I were arguing for a God coming from nothing [which, again, I'm not], how is it that a God coming from nothing is logically impossible but anything else coming from nothing is just "counter-intuitive"?

Ok I am considering both propositions..or maybe 3.

The origins of the cosmos (from which the BB event that produced our own particular universe came) were always there (an eternal creator that made the stuff, or the 'stuff' was eternal.

Nothing was always there (which at least gets around what created it) and produced either 'stuff' or a cosmic mind (aka 'god').

Some kind of infinite recession or eternal causation -loop which nobody really likes.

The atheist argument is somewhat like the physics argument which is that Nothing contains the potentiality for producing 'stuff' (Nothing that can act like something). The Theist argument is an intelligence which was not created by anything which is multiplying logical entities more than a created 'stuff which is not (also) intelligent, but has innate physical behaviours.

Whichever one the Theist opts for it can be said to be a strawman of the other, but it's irrelevant because I'm not opting for either but arguing the merits (or not) of both proposals. Which is that Theism just adds an extra logical entity (intelligence) to the materialist one (stuff', either eternal or coming out of nothing.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #120

The idea that everything came from nothing is an appeal to magic. It doesn't matter if it is theists or non-theists who claim that everything came from nothing, it is still appealing to magic.

Actually it isn't even that, because if you start with nothing, you don't even have magic to appeal to.

Yes - nothing wouldn't even have consciousness let alone things which consciousness can claim are the product of "magic".

So appealing to the premise that something came from nothing, is shown to be non-variable [fallacy] and as such can be removed from the table of discussion as it is non-relevant to the fact of something.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #124]

Theism just adds an extra logical entity (intelligence) to the materialist one (stuff', either eternal or coming out of nothing.

Intelligence exists in nature, so no thing has been 'added' that wasn't already there.

There is little point in debating the logic of intelligence existing where logically only material should exist, since the truth is, intelligence exists, whether deemed logical or not and is no more illogical in existing than material is.

"The idea of nothing is non-relevant to the fact of something" = "It is consciousness behaving as consciousness behaves"

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Omniscient computers can tell if God has created the Universe and all in it or not. Omniscient computers are also known as the OR gate testing regimentation, i.e., operationalized alphabet.

While I tell about "omniscient computers", you should also know that truth is given by a feeling in the body as well, like in, "this feels true", which is a way to speak of God in each and every one of us.

So feelings and omniscient computers may actually be on equal footing here in terms of truth and epistemology and thus, both may confirm that God is the source of the Universe and all in it.

Happy?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #124]

Theism just adds an extra logical entity (intelligence) to the materialist one (stuff', either eternal or coming out of nothing.

Intelligence exists in nature, so no thing has been 'added' that wasn't already there.

There is little point in debating the logic of intelligence existing where logically only material should exist, since the truth is, intelligence exists, whether deemed logical or not and is no more illogical in existing than material is.

"The idea of nothing is non-relevant to the fact of something" = "It is consciousness behaving as consciousness behaves"

I assume that you aren't referring to animal intelligence as the origins of that can be theorised. But a Cosmic intelligence is something else, and such a claim need validation or a Claim is all that it is. Declining the debate of that is admission that there is no good case for it. Over to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Omniscient computers can tell if God has created the Universe and all in it or not. Omniscient computers are also known as the OR gate testing regimentation, i.e., operationalized alphabet.

While I tell about "omniscient computers", you should also know that truth is given by a feeling in the body as well, like in, "this feels true", which is a way to speak of God in each and every one of us.

So feelings and omniscient computers may actually be on equal footing here in terms of truth and epistemology and thus, both may confirm that God is the source of the Universe and all in it.

Happy?

Do we have any omniscient computers?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Omniscient computers can tell if God has created the Universe and all in it or not. Omniscient computers are also known as the OR gate testing regimentation, i.e., operationalized alphabet.

While I tell about "omniscient computers", you should also know that truth is given by a feeling in the body as well, like in, "this feels true", which is a way to speak of God in each and every one of us.

So feelings and omniscient computers may actually be on equal footing here in terms of truth and epistemology and thus, both may confirm that God is the source of the Universe and all in it.

Do we have any omniscient computers?

Yes. The design of the OR logical gate of "every" good computer processor has proven omniscient, actually. They have used it on Sid Meier Civ games, for example. But of course, there are far more powerful uses, such as "scanning" the Universe for technology that we don't have and so on. The Future is bright, I tell you, also because all crime has become public so that no criminal goes free.

See also quantum information theory to obtain the facts of intelligence/knowledge being everywhere. I know Oxford University had a course out on Youtube a while ago.