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 .

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #99

Plausibility is a poor means of finding truth or fact.

Tell that to Transponder, who thinks it more plausible for nonexistence to make something exist than for the source of everything to exist beyond our power to observe it.

[Bradskii]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #99

Plausibility is a poor means of finding truth or fact.

Tell that to Transponder, who thinks it more plausible for nonexistence to make something exist than for the source of everything to exist beyond our power to observe it.

Has it been shown that nothing existed on the other side of the big bang?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #99

Plausibility is a poor means of finding truth or fact.

Tell that to Transponder, who thinks it more plausible for nonexistence to make something exist than for the source of everything to exist beyond our power to observe it.

We know the universe exists. All speculation of it having been created suffers the fatal flaw of a lack of evidence.

That said, proposing some "meta consciousness" has multiple faults. I guess you can't refute my argument in this regard.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #99

Plausibility is a poor means of finding truth or fact.

Tell that to Transponder, who thinks it more plausible for nonexistence to make something exist than for the source of everything to exist beyond our power to observe it.

Joey K is right. Plausibility is not a good way to find out out fact and truth. Research and investigation does that. You don't pick which hypothesis is most plausible and take that to be the fact. The best it does is weight credibilty with the hypothesis that best fits the data or at least logic.

I'm proposing a suggestion (at most) that resolves the infinite regression paradox without multiplying logical entities by proposing a cosmic mind that has no apparent origin. This doesn't rule anything out as we don't know a thing about what's on the 'other side of the Big Bang'. The purpose is little more than a way of countering theism arguing (following Kalam, rather) that any alternative hypothesis than Goddunnit is 'impossible'. or at least, not plausible.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #99

Plausibility is a poor means of finding truth or fact.

Tell that to Transponder, who thinks it more plausible for nonexistence to make something exist than for the source of everything to exist beyond our power to observe it.

Joey K is right. Plausibility is not a good way to find out out fact and truth. Research and investigation does that. You don't pick which hypothesis is most plausible and take that to be the fact. The best it does is weight credibilty with the hypothesis that best fits the data or at least logic.

I'm proposing a suggestion (at most) that resolves the infinite regression paradox without multiplying logical entities by proposing a cosmic mind that has no apparent origin. This doesn't rule anything out as we don't know a thing about what's on the 'other side of the Big Bang'. The purpose is little more than a way of countering theism arguing (following Kalam, rather) that any alternative hypothesis than Goddunnit is 'impossible'. or at least, not plausible.

Agreed. Your position doesn't introduce complexities where they're not warranted by the data. (Though it does rely on more speculation than I prefer).

As one proposes a "meta consciousness" as a creative force for the universe coming into existence, it merely pushes the question back another step - what caused the causer.

Of course then the proponent'll declare it always existed, or came into existence spontaneously. Both're arguments we can place on the universe, without any need for the problems induced by proposing some intelligent creator at the helm.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #105

As one proposes a "meta consciousness" as a creative force for the universe coming into existence, it merely pushes the question back another step - what caused the causer.

As opposed to what? A cause not having a causer?

Of course then the proponent'll declare it always existed, or came into existence spontaneously. Both're arguments we can place on the universe, without any need for the problems induced by proposing some intelligent creator at the helm.

But that brings us back to an earlier point: if you're going to apply causality to a cosmic creative force, you can't get out of applying it to the universe as well.

Assuming for the sake of argument that nothingness can produce something, let's look at it another way using an analogy popular among atheists:

Suppose that my neighbor says there's an invisible dragon living in his basement. I ask him how he knows it's there if it's invisible, and he assures me that it is without producing any evidence. To settle the issue, I go down to his basement with a big sack of flour and spread it all over so the invisible dragon will leave tracks as it walks around. If no tracks appear, I tell him, there will really be no reason to believe in the invisible dragon.

As soon as I finish, dragon tracks start appearing in the flour. With no conventional way to account for this, how do I continue to argue to my neighbor that there's no invisible dragon?

Something produced by nothing, which is to say existence produced by nonexistence, would be like those dragon tracks. The speculation I'm positing here is that the aforementioned "meta consciousness" might exist metaphysically, as the invisible dragon that makes something "from nothing".

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #105

As one proposes a "meta consciousness" as a creative force for the universe coming into existence, it merely pushes the question back another step - what caused the causer.

As opposed to what? A cause not having a causer?

Beats me. I don't propose there to be a cause for the universe to exist.

Of course then the proponent'll declare it always existed, or came into existence spontaneously. Both're arguments we can place on the universe, without any need for the problems induced by proposing some intelligent creator at the helm.

But that brings us back to an earlier point: if you're going to apply causality to a cosmic creative force, you can't get out of applying it to the universe as well.

See above. I merely note the universe exists.

Assuming for the sake of argument that nothingness can produce something, let's look at it another way using an analogy popular among atheists:

Assuming is a poor way to get at the truth.

Suppose that my neighbor says there's an invisible dragon living in his basement. I ask him how he knows it's there if it's invisible, and he assures me that it is without producing any evidence. To settle the issue, I go down to his basement with a big sack of flour and spread it all over so the invisible dragon will leave tracks as it walks around. If no tracks appear, I tell him, there will really be no reason to believe in the invisible dragon.

Have you seen the footprints of this "meta consciousness" you propose?

As soon as I finish, dragon tracks start appearing in the flour. With no conventional way to account for this, how do I continue to argue to my neighbor that there's no invisible dragon?

Ergotism is caused by the Claviceps purpurea fungus.

Something produced by nothing, which is to say existence produced by nonexistence, would be like those dragon tracks. The speculation I'm positing here is that the aforementioned "meta consciousness" might exist metaphysically, as the invisible dragon that makes something "from nothing".

"Might" is a poor means of determining the truth. I might be the cause of the universe, but I ain't.

Metaphysics or not, your "meta consciousness" proposal suffers from a lack of confirmatory evidence. You might as well propose Mother Goose laid her a golden egg, and the Giant climbed down the beanstalk and smooshed it, and how bout that, out popped the universe.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #107

Assuming is a poor way to get at the truth.

Since I was talking about the assumption that you and Transponder have been defending, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.

Ergotism is caused by the Claviceps purpurea fungus.

And that relates to this discussion.......how?

Metaphysics or not, your "meta consciousness" proposal suffers from a lack of confirmatory evidence. You might as well propose Mother Goose laid her a golden egg, and the Giant climbed down the beanstalk and smooshed it, and how bout that, out popped the universe.

A cosmic consciousness is an unproven hypothesis. Something proceeding from absolute nothingness is a logical absurdity. I'm favoring a nonrational idea over an irrational one.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #107Okay, I think I finally got your ergotism reference. A seemingly desperate stretch, but I could use powdered sugar instead.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit for speling...

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #107

Assuming is a poor way to get at the truth.

Since I was talking about the assumption that you and Transponder have been defending, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.

Regardless of which way the fingers point, do you deny that assumption is a poor means of determining truth?

Ergotism is caused by the Claviceps purpurea fungus.

And that relates to this discussion.......how?

It may help to understand a discussion if ya read all of a given post, but here's a refresher...

From Post 107:

As soon as I finish, dragon tracks start appearing in the flour. With no conventional way to account for this, how do I continue to argue to my neighbor that there's no invisible dragon?

To which I noted how ergotism is the product of being in contact with, or digesting flour that's been contaminated with the Claviceps purpureus fungus.

So then, we have a possible, and most likely explanation for you and / or your friend seeing dragon footprints in flour. While I prefer shrooms or vitamin a, or peyote when available for my psychedelic endeavors, I ain't ajudging ya neither one.

So now I ask, again...

Have you seen the footprints of this "cosmic consciousness"?


Returning to our regularly scheduled post...

Metaphysics or not, your "meta consciousness" proposal suffers from a lack of confirmatory evidence. You might as well propose Mother Goose laid her a golden egg, and the Giant climbed down the beanstalk and smooshed it, and how bout that, out popped the universe.

A cosmic consciousness is an unproven hypothesis.

"Unproven" being the operative word.

Something proceeding from absolute nothingness is a logical absurdity.

This still doesn't address the following...

Where one proposes a "cosmic consciousness" to exist without cause, we lack data that provides for any logical, factual commitment of it being there.
It's further complicated by medical and physical science, where all evidence indicates thought is the product of a physical brain.
Then there's the whole deal of what powers this "cosmic consciousness"
Among other issues.

It 'demands' that the universe "came into existence", while discluding this "cosmic consciousness" from such a demand.

I'm favoring a nonrational idea over an irrational one.

Thus, by your own words, we see your position lacks rational rigor, among it's other many problems.

I see little difference twixt what's nonrational, and what's ir.

The most rational conclusion here then, is that, according to the "always existed", or "don't need it created" "cosmic consciousness" hypothesis, we're just fussing the question back another step.

When by those measures we can more rationally conclude the universe "always existed", "don't need it created", and that it is we, who have consciousness, hold the true and compelling claim that we are this "cosmic consciousness", by virtue of being borne of the universe itself.

"Cosmic consciousness" is little to not different from "god", both're hypothesi, as empty as the locker that'd contain their evidence.