Let's pretend...

[Tcg]

.

...that any of the arguments for god are valid. We have to pretend of course because they are horrible. But, if one established that a god created us, them, the universe and whatever else, what reason would there be to conclude that creator is still around?

As I like to present for example, maybe god was given a chemistry set for Christmas one year and he accidentally blew himself up. Then his bits and pieces and those of the chemistry set become the universe. There'd be no more god any more.


Tcg

[Clownboat]

Was writing all that more comfortable than conceding that material existence isn't self-explanatory?

No silly, as I made no comment about material existence being self-explanatory or not.
I'm advocating for "I don't know" to be uttered more often then pretending to know. You missed this?

Between the universe springing forth from (1.)TRANSPONDER's "nothing that can nevertheless create something" or (2.)an underlying cosmic principle beyond the scope of our instruments and perhaps of our intellect, I hold that the latter actually requires less magical thinking.

Hold what you will.
Do you claim to know 2 to be true, or is it more honest to say, 'I don't know'?
I'm advocating for honesty and pointing out how virtually all religions pretend to know. Since humans invented all the religions we know of as far as we can tell, it makes sense that when inventing these god concepts they included claims as to why and how we are here along with what happens to us when we die.

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours? I suggest you quote mine this out of your reply or try to come up with a clever way to dodge providing an answer.

[TRANSPONDER]

Was writing all that more comfortable than conceding that material existence isn't self-explanatory?

No silly, as I made no comment about material existence being self-explanatory or not.
I'm advocating for "I don't know" to be uttered more often then pretending to know. You missed this?

Between the universe springing forth from (1.)TRANSPONDER's "nothing that can nevertheless create something" or (2.)an underlying cosmic principle beyond the scope of our instruments and perhaps of our intellect, I hold that the latter actually requires less magical thinking.

Hold what you will.
Do you claim to know 2 to be true, or is it more honest to say, 'I don't know'?
I'm advocating for honesty and pointing out how virtually all religions pretend to know. Since humans invented all the religions we know of as far as we can tell, it makes sense that when inventing these god concepts they included claims as to why and how we are here along with what happens to us when we die.

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours? I suggest you quote mine this out of your reply or try to come up with a clever way to dodge providing an answer.

I'm not sure whether athetoTheist claims to Know or not. Theist he is I gather from the name but that might be no more than saying that an intelligent creative being is logically (at least) more probable than any naturalistic hypothesis. I would imagine that he has to postulate an intelligent god or he isn't Theist, and I'm still waiting for him to come clean (and I trust that won't try the 'that so Wude atheist is talking about me like I wasn't there! ploy as all the time he refuses to answer this simple question..why...he isn't here, nor there, and I'll save the reamino ) about whether he proposes a god or - really -a material explanation (whatever it might be) as more probable.

So I certainly don't know and nobody does, and our pal may not claim to know either. Even someone who thinks the evidence or logic points to an intelligent creator may be quite clear that it's an agnostic claim.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #68

I'd still like to know whether you propose a First cause that is intelligent or not.

As I've said----and repeated----

I admit to having reasons from personal observation for suspecting consciousness in the universe

I haven't gone into my personal observations here as I believe that to be a topic of its own and, as I've also mentioned, I don't rely on my own observational experiences to constitute evidence in the minds of others.

At the same time, in the interest of avoiding logical fallacies, one should be mindful to avoid the ad hominem fallacy of presuming to know why another observer is convinced of something which isn't evident to oneself. "I haven't seen any evidence" does not equate to, "There isn't any evidence".

And I remind you again that it is only multiplying entities beyond necessity which is to be avoided. We may not need specific deities to throw lightning across the sky, but when we're talking about why anything is here at all it gets more challenging to nail down something which covers all the bases.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #71

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours? I suggest you quote mine this out of your reply or try to come up with a clever way to dodge providing an answer.

Since I've said nothing about it here, you have no way of knowing what my "religion" is, though you seem to settle for assuming that it's of the conventional variety.

[Bust Nak]

...rebuttal tactic known as 'If you try to pull the high moral ground card, I'm going to ream you a new toilet -organ'.

Moderator Comment

Please dial the language back another notch please.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #71

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours? I suggest you quote mine this out of your reply or try to come up with a clever way to dodge providing an answer.

Since I've said nothing about it here, you have no way of knowing what my "religion" is, though you seem to settle for assuming that it's of the conventional variety.

Nice strawman of a dodge! Saw that coming a mile away!

Please note, I never claimed to know what your religions is. Why would I care what your religion is anyway? Why would I care if you feel it is conventional or not? I care about neither unless you can start showing that you speak the truth. Do that and I will care. Until then, your personal beliefs are unimportant yet you sound as though others should think they are. I don't get that and it comes across as arrogant to boot.

Readers, note the question that was dodged:
"Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours?"
Athetotheist's answer: You don't know my religion!
Clownboat: Derp. Called that dodge a mile away. (I even suggested that you quote mine it. Pride before a fall perhaps?)

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #68

I'd still like to know whether you propose a First cause that is intelligent or not.

As I've said----and repeated----

I admit to having reasons from personal observation for suspecting consciousness in the universe

I haven't gone into my personal observations here as I believe that to be a topic of its own and, as I've also mentioned, I don't rely on my own observational experiences to constitute evidence in the minds of others.

At the same time, in the interest of avoiding logical fallacies, one should be mindful to avoid the ad hominem fallacy of presuming to know why another observer is convinced of something which isn't evident to oneself. "I haven't seen any evidence" does not equate to, "There isn't any evidence".

And I remind you again that it is only multiplying entities beyond necessity which is to be avoided. We may not need specific deities to throw lightning across the sky, but when we're talking about why anything is here at all it gets more challenging to nail down something which covers all the bases.

Ok thank you, Mr Touchy. I asked because I did not want to conclude that you postulated a god {though I recalled that you did, even though you are being evasive aboit it }, which is what a cosmic intelligence in the universe is. At least for the purposes of you having to explain where it came from as well as the stuff it was made from, while I only have to try to explain where the stuff came from. That's why you have an extra problem {cosmic intelligence} to explain than I do.

To be quite clear for anyone who hasn't followed the atrgument , a cosmic intelligence {Aka god'} requires one more logical entity {intelligence} than a naturally =occurring material {to make the universe}. Therefore, the principle of parsimony makes the god -claim less logically desirable than the material one. This scuppers any idea that God has to be the logical default of the Cosmic Origin question and {logically - even without the proven existence of matter and physics but no proven cosmic intelligence} makes material/natural origins of the universe {even despite the problem of the origins of matter} the logical default, not a cosmic intelligence Aka God. Just clarifying that God is NOT the logical default and thus the burden of proof falls on the theist and not on the atheist and their materialist preference {1}.

This of course does away with Kalam and any confusing numerical formulae or Greek - lettered philosophical syllogism bamboozlement it incorporates, not that our atheist to Theist pal was arguing the Kalamitous god - apologetic as such.

{1} just as, since AtoT mentioned it, explaining how lightning happens puts the burden of proof on anyone claiming there was a god using it. Not that even Christianity now tries to ague that, as once they did. But of course they still argue from Kalam. In fact it is their biggest gap for god.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77

At least for the purposes of you having to explain where it came from as well as the stuff it was made from, while I only have to try to explain where the stuff came from.

To avoid reasoning circularly, you have to explain where the stuff came from without invoking the stuff itself. What else do you have?

This scuppers any idea that God has to be the logical default of the Cosmic Origin question and {logically - even without the proven existence of matter and physics but no proven cosmic intelligence} makes material/natural origins of the universe {even despite the problem of the origins of matter} the logical default

The problem of the origins of matter(/energy) means that there is still an explanation necessary. As long as that's the case, there's some multiplying yet to be done and it's premature to award the laurels to problematic matter by "default". It's like you're criticizing my car design for having an "unnecessary" rocket engine when your car design doesn't have any engine.

You contend that consciousness itself is an extra entity, presumably because you assume that consciousness has to evolve. I submit that this may be a bias inherent in our own biological existence. An analogy I've gone to before involves the neurons which compose the brain. Each individual neuron is presumably unconscious, but together they make up the seat of biological consciousness. Thus the whole exceeds the sum of its parts. If we could shrink down to the scale on which a single neuron were as big to us as the known universe, would we be able to detect any indication of consciousness in the neuron universe?

There's also this:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... conscious/

If there's fruit to be borne of that study, then consciousness isn't an extra entity but rather an integral feature of the agencies already proposed. And in a theoretically infinite cosmos, innate consciousness could be theoretically infinite. And a key characteristic associated with a universal creative principle would be infinitude.

Not offering any of this as ironclad proof of anything, just something to think about.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #71

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours? I suggest you quote mine this out of your reply or try to come up with a clever way to dodge providing an answer.

Since I've said nothing about it here, you have no way of knowing what my "religion" is, though you seem to settle for assuming that it's of the conventional variety.

Nice strawman of a dodge! Saw that coming a mile away!

Please note, I never claimed to know what your religions is. Why would I care what your religion is anyway? Why would I care if you feel it is conventional or not? I care about neither unless you can start showing that you speak the truth. Do that and I will care. Until then, your personal beliefs are unimportant yet you sound as though others should think they are. I don't get that and it comes across as arrogant to boot.

Readers, note the question that was dodged:
"Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours?"
Athetotheist's answer: You don't know my religion!
Clownboat: Derp. Called that dodge a mile away. (I even suggested that you quote mine it. Pride before a fall perhaps?)

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours?

This question insinuates that I'm laying claim to some exclusively imparted divine truth. I'm doing no such thing. As I've pointed out----repeatedly----I make no claim to fully understand the nature of the principle I'm postulating. Again, I'm trying to make a case for it's existence.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77

At least for the purposes of you having to explain where it came from as well as the stuff it was made from, while I only have to try to explain where the stuff came from.

To avoid reasoning circularly, you have to explain where the stuff came from without invoking the stuff itself. What else do you have?

This scuppers any idea that God has to be the logical default of the Cosmic Origin question and {logically - even without the proven existence of matter and physics but no proven cosmic intelligence} makes material/natural origins of the universe {even despite the problem of the origins of matter} the logical default

The problem of the origins of matter(/energy) means that there is still an explanation necessary. As long as that's the case, there's some multiplying yet to be done and it's premature to award the laurels to problematic matter by "default". It's like you're criticizing my car design for having an "unnecessary" rocket engine when your car design doesn't have any engine.

You contend that consciousness itself is an extra entity, presumably because you assume that consciousness has to evolve. I submit that this may be a bias inherent in our own biological existence. An analogy I've gone to before involves the neurons which compose the brain. Each individual neuron is presumably unconscious, but together they make up the seat of biological consciousness. Thus the whole exceeds the sum of its parts. If we could shrink down to the scale on which a single neuron were as big to us as the known universe, would we be able to detect any indication of consciousness in the neuron universe?

There's also this:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... conscious/

If there's fruit to be borne of that study, then consciousness isn't an extra entity but rather an integral feature of the agencies already proposed. And in a theoretically infinite cosmos, innate consciousness could be theoretically infinite. And a key characteristic associated with a universal creative principle would be infinitude.

Not offering any of this as ironclad proof of anything, just something to think about.

I've already answered some of this postulating a nothing that doesn't need to be created is a theoretical way out of the circular problem that is infinite regression. Claiming a something that didn't need to b created is also a way out of it, but seems illogical or at least counter intuitive. Never mind whose innate bias is trying to make a case for a less probable hypothesis.

As to consciousness, you rather give yourself away here with talk of neurons - that and indeed the energy that buzzes along then doing the awareness, is all matter, so a god {cosmic consciousness} would appear to require stuff and then an ordering {consciousness} on top of that and all with no origin, so as to have 'god' account for creation; one more logical entity than something from nothing. Whichever way, it would seem, you try to wangle it.

As to an innate consciousness in the universe, I'll have a look at the do it yourself monthly 'does science prove God?' article by Mr. A. Believer, but it seems the same problem, you need the stuff first {just as I do} and then you need it to be in order. Two processes. To suppose it appears out of nowhere already ordered as conscious is multiplying logical entities.

I had a quick look at the clickbait popular article but a 'Sign here before you can look at our website' popup appeared and I automatically leave. If the article makes a case, you will have to summarise it yourself, not send me to find your evidence for you.