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]

I can explain it!
We don't know and must continue to investigate.

If no one knows, then no one has a default position. You can't say, "It's a tie, so I win."

What on odd way for you to admit that we don't know and should continue to investigate. I don't pretend to know how our universe came to be, so claiming a win would be odd, yet you fear it anyway. Do you claim to know how our universe came to be? Do you think a god concept was behind it and that, that god is still around?

Pretending to know stops investigation and it is the realm of the religious to pretend to know such things.

Pretending to know that the material universe is self-explanatory isn't the realm of the religious, is it?

It is for the religions claiming to know how our universe came to be. "And God said..."

Again, pretending to know stops investigation and is the realm of religions to supply answers as to how and why we are here. Why is this so hard to own up to?
Is it because it leads to the obvious conclusion that all the competing religions with their competing gods cannot all be true, yet they could all be false and that is uncomfortable to come to terms with for those involved in a religion?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #39

Then you can explain how nonmaterial existence accounts for itself without invoking a nonmaterial explanation, which needs another explanation, which needs another, which needs another, which needs another.......?

There's that stack of turtles again.

See how it works yet?

Until you present something to stack your turtles on, I'd say it's premature of you to go after my stack.

Not knowing, so not proposing how things came about, I got me no turtle in the race.

I've merely pointed out that what you propose are problems in the arguments of others are the exact same flaws in your own argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #51

Again, pretending to know stops investigation and is the realm of religions to supply answers as to how and why we are here. Why is this so hard to own up to?
Is it because it leads to the obvious conclusion that all the competing religions with their competing gods cannot all be true, yet they could all be false and that is uncomfortable to come to terms with for those involved in a religion?

Was writing all that more comfortable than conceding that material existence isn't self-explanatory? Pretending to know that it is isn't in the realm of religion. Why is this so hard to own up to?

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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #39

Then you can explain how nonmaterial existence accounts for itself without invoking a nonmaterial explanation, which needs another explanation, which needs another, which needs another, which needs another.......?

There's that stack of turtles again.

See how it works yet?

Until you present something to stack your turtles on, I'd say it's premature of you to go after my stack.

Not knowing, so not proposing how things came about, I got me no turtle in the race.

I've merely pointed out that what you propose are problems in the arguments of others are the exact same flaws in your own argument.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #52

Not knowing, so not proposing how things came about, I got me no turtle in the race.

I've merely pointed out that what you propose are problems in the arguments of others are the exact same flaws in your own argument.

They're actually not, because I'm coming at it a bit differently. TRANSPONDER assumed that I was proposing a god made of energy, like the universe. I pointed out that I'm actually postulating a principle underlying the existence of what we can detect.

[JoeyKnothead]

Not knowing, so not proposing how things came about, I got me no turtle in the race.

I've merely pointed out that what you propose are problems in the arguments of others are the exact same flaws in your own argument.

They're actually not, because I'm coming at it a bit differently. TRANSPONDER assumed that I was proposing a god made of energy, like the universe. I pointed out that I'm actually postulating a principle underlying the existence of what we can detect.

And that principle is?

And what are we detecting? (I don't wanna assume, so ask for clarity)

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #51

Again, pretending to know stops investigation and is the realm of religions to supply answers as to how and why we are here. Why is this so hard to own up to?
Is it because it leads to the obvious conclusion that all the competing religions with their competing gods cannot all be true, yet they could all be false and that is uncomfortable to come to terms with for those involved in a religion?

Was writing all that more comfortable than conceding that material existence isn't self-explanatory? Pretending to know that it is isn't in the realm of religion. Why is this so hard to own up to?

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.

Since you invoke my Holy Name, I have to point out that you ignore that I was identifying intelligence as a characteristic of the First Cause (AKA 'god') and that is the extra logical entity. IF however you do not insist on this underlying comic principle as being intelligent, i.e a natural physical and thus material principle, then please put it on record and we can proceed on that basis.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #39

Then you can explain how nonmaterial existence accounts for itself without invoking a nonmaterial explanation, which needs another explanation, which needs another, which needs another, which needs another.......?

There's that stack of turtles again.

See how it works yet?

Until you present something to stack your turtles on, I'd say it's premature of you to go after my stack.

Not knowing, so not proposing how things came about, I got me no turtle in the race.

I've merely pointed out that what you propose are problems in the arguments of others are the exact same flaws in your own argument.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #52

Not knowing, so not proposing how things came about, I got me no turtle in the race.

I've merely pointed out that what you propose are problems in the arguments of others are the exact same flaws in your own argument.

They're actually not, because I'm coming at it a bit differently. TRANSPONDER assumed that I was proposing a god made of energy, like the universe. I pointed out that I'm actually postulating a principle underlying the existence of what we can detect.

That's very vague, but again, I have to ask again whether this principle is assumed by you necessarily to be intelligent. If not then it is a vague Something that is an unknown physical (material/natural) origin for cosmic stuff and is either eternal, something from nothing or turtles all the way down. I merely proposed something from nothing as a way out of this impasse.

[TRANSPONDER]

Not knowing, so not proposing how things came about, I got me no turtle in the race.

I've merely pointed out that what you propose are problems in the arguments of others are the exact same flaws in your own argument.

They're actually not, because I'm coming at it a bit differently. TRANSPONDER assumed that I was proposing a god made of energy, like the universe. I pointed out that I'm actually postulating a principle underlying the existence of what we can detect.

And that principle is?

And what are we detecting? (I don't wanna assume, so ask for clarity)

Yep - an 'underlying principle' is terribly vague and no more than saying there is a reason why the cosmos exists. Well, yes, and nobody knows what and it's a matter for Cosmologists or physicists and does not belong here unless there is a religious aspect involved in the discussion which our supposed ex -atheist pal seems to be protesting he is not arguing at all. I sniff a monumental attempt at evasive misdirection here.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57

Well, yes, and nobody knows what and it's a matter for Cosmologists or physicists and does not belong here unless there is a religious aspect involved in the discussion which our supposed ex -atheist pal seems to be protesting he is not arguing at all. I sniff a monumental attempt at evasive misdirection here.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that it's impolite to talk about others in front of them like they aren't there?

I admit to having reasons from personal observation for suspecting consciousness in the universe, reasons which I don't expect to convince others and which I'm not relying on here. Also, I don't claim to know the full nature of the principle to which I refer.

At the same time, such a principle is hardly any more vague than a Nothing which can "nevertheless" create something. If nothing can "nevertheless" be all-creative, why couldn't an underlying principle just as easily "nevertheless" be conscious? That should be satisfactory to you, since you have no problem with the "counter-intuitive".

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57

Well, yes, and nobody knows what and it's a matter for Cosmologists or physicists and does not belong here unless there is a religious aspect involved in the discussion which our supposed ex -atheist pal seems to be protesting he is not arguing at all. I sniff a monumental attempt at evasive misdirection here.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that it's impolite to talk about others in front of them like they aren't there?

I admit to having reasons from personal observation for suspecting consciousness in the universe, reasons which I don't expect to convince others and which I'm not relying on here. Also, I don't claim to know the full nature of the principle to which I refer.

At the same time, such a principle is hardly any more vague than a Nothing which can "nevertheless" create something. If nothing can "nevertheless" be all-creative, why couldn't an underlying principle just as easily "nevertheless" be conscious? That should be satisfactory to you, since you have no problem with the "counter-intuitive".

I rarely listened to her as she talked nonsense as well. And your persistent denialism makes it wearying to address you personally so I'm rather addressing the wider audience and finally, Sue me. And I note that you ignored the pertinent question of whether you do or don't credit intelligence to this amorphous principle of yours, so I suggest you treat my posts with that modicum of respect before you start pointing the accusing finger at me.

You continue to insult my intelligence by persistently overlooking a pretty clear case - yes, nobody knows one way or the other and I have never presented the something from nothing case as anything more than a half hypothetical way out of the impasse of turtles all the way down, which again with small respect, you insisted was the problem with my suggestion rather than a way out of it.

Even without the turtle -stack of a First cause causing a first cause, or the evasive evasion of an origin with a vague underlying principle which is eternal, endlessly created or appeared out of nothing and which problem appears unaddressed by you. You jedi- wave a totally vague 'underlying principle' and think you have made a case? I don't treat our readership as though I expect them to be gullible dodos.

Your glass house is in in shards, chum, and I don't see that you were any better off for me talking to you rather than everybody. Your case still looked like a dogs' dinner.

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

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.

A more grandiose analogy would be to liken the "accidentally blew himself up" and "chemistry set" to;

Purposefully entering the simulation he created and divesting his consciousness within it.

The result being "losing himself within his own creation." [= "no creator outside the creation any more" - at least for the duration of the experience.]