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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #97

"Something caused the big bang".

Who can argue with a term so broad as 'something'?

Well, that's better than "Nothing caused the Big Bang".

What turtle caused that something?

You're just adding one more question, and not really explaining anything.

See my last paragraph in post #92.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I'm proposing a single underlying principle as opposed to an infinite reduction of mechanistic agencies to get from "nothing" to "something". So which of us is really multiplying agencies more?

So what is this "principle", and how does it cause an entire universe?

I reckon you're speaking of metaphysics, but I'm just not understanding any specific notion to consider here.

[Athetotheist]

...
I'm proposing a single underlying principle as opposed to an infinite reduction of mechanistic agencies to get from "nothing" to "something". So which of us is really multiplying agencies more?

So what is this "principle", and how does it cause an entire universe?

I reckon you're speaking of metaphysics, but I'm just not understanding any specific notion to consider here.

How many times do I have to say it? I'm not claiming to know its full nature. I'm postulating its existence because I don't see how the material universe is up to the job of bringing itself about.

[JoeyKnothead]

How many times do I have to say it? I'm not claiming to know its full nature. I'm postulating its existence because I don't see how the material universe is up to the job of bringing itself about.

Without knowing what it is you're getting at, we're all lost as a cow at a square dance.

So, again I say, who can refute an argument that postulates a something is doing it a something?

And, as we ask how the material universe came about, I ask by what means can we know how your proposed something came about?

I contend that in asking a serious question of how the universe came to be, it's just as serious to ask how that something / cause came to be.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
I'm proposing a single underlying principle as opposed to an infinite reduction of mechanistic agencies to get from "nothing" to "something". So which of us is really multiplying agencies more?

So what is this "principle", and how does it cause an entire universe?

I reckon you're speaking of metaphysics, but I'm just not understanding any specific notion to consider here.

How many times do I have to say it? I'm not claiming to know its full nature. I'm postulating its existence because I don't see how the material universe is up to the job of bringing itself about.

I think we all got it. 'Something from cannot come from nothing so a uncreated intelligence must have done it.' We know, we've heard it before, and I'm sure you've heard it before 'What created the intelligent creator?'

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105

I think we all got it. 'Something from cannot come from nothing so a uncreated intelligence must have done it.' We know, we've heard it before, and I'm sure you've heard it before 'What created the intelligent creator?'

If you've been paying attention, you'll remember that I've been referring to a principle, something underlying the existence of the "cosmic stuff"----something innate, something which has to exist. Yes, it's a bit like a Flatlander trying to describe a beach ball, but it's no more wild a notion than that of time beginning at the Big Bang.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105

I think we all got it. 'Something from cannot come from nothing so a uncreated intelligence must have done it.' We know, we've heard it before, and I'm sure you've heard it before 'What created the intelligent creator?'

If you've been paying attention, you'll remember that I've been referring to a principle, something underlying the existence of the "cosmic stuff"----something innate, something which has to exist. Yes, it's a bit like a Flatlander trying to describe a beach ball, but it's no more wild a notion than that of time beginning at the Big Bang.

Yep - that doesn't help anyone, including you.

I could put it like this: "There is a reason (explanation) why everything is here...Sure, but nobody knows what that explanation is - we 'Don't Know" and so it is pointless for you to keep pounding on it like it explained or proved anything...It sounds a bit evasive,too; like you pretending that you had an explanation, when you don't, never mind dishonest, (possibly) when you gave it up that you though there was a cosmic intelligence and we are still waiting for you to explain where it came from.

Bottom line: this 'underlying principle' Thing of yours is smoke and mirrors, a jedi wave and and a waste of your typing time, and our post -reading. Time for a new apologetic, if you have any.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105

I think we all got it. 'Something from cannot come from nothing so a uncreated intelligence must have done it.' We know, we've heard it before, and I'm sure you've heard it before 'What created the intelligent creator?'

If you've been paying attention, you'll remember that I've been referring to a principle, something underlying the existence of the "cosmic stuff"----something innate, something which has to exist. Yes, it's a bit like a Flatlander trying to describe a beach ball, but it's no more wild a notion than that of time beginning at the Big Bang.

Yep - that doesn't help anyone, including you.

I could put it like this: "There is a reason (explanation) why everything is here...Sure, but nobody knows what that explanation is - we 'Don't Know" and so it is pointless for you to keep pounding on it like it explained or proved anything...It sounds a bit evasive,too; like you pretending that you had an explanation, when you don't, never mind dishonest, (possibly) when you gave it up that you though there was a cosmic intelligence and we are still waiting for you to explain where it came from.

Bottom line: this 'underlying principle' Thing of yours is smoke and mirrors, a jedi wave and and a waste of your typing time, and our post -reading. Time for a new apologetic, if you have any.

As I indicated in post #'s 58, 61 and 73, I haven't been including personal observations which lead me in the direction of suspecting consciousness as, their being personal observations, I don't presume to offer them as evidence to others (suffice it to say that I've seen Littlewood's Law of Miracles violated often enough to render it usless in my opinion).

You don't seem to have minded wasting your own typing time here, apparently finding my position such a serious threat that you've had to go all out to take it down.

I'm still invoking fewer agencies than you are.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105

I think we all got it. 'Something from cannot come from nothing so a uncreated intelligence must have done it.' We know, we've heard it before, and I'm sure you've heard it before 'What created the intelligent creator?'

If you've been paying attention, you'll remember that I've been referring to a principle, something underlying the existence of the "cosmic stuff"----something innate, something which has to exist. Yes, it's a bit like a Flatlander trying to describe a beach ball, but it's no more wild a notion than that of time beginning at the Big Bang.

Yep - that doesn't help anyone, including you.

I could put it like this: "There is a reason (explanation) why everything is here...Sure, but nobody knows what that explanation is - we 'Don't Know" and so it is pointless for you to keep pounding on it like it explained or proved anything...It sounds a bit evasive,too; like you pretending that you had an explanation, when you don't, never mind dishonest, (possibly) when you gave it up that you though there was a cosmic intelligence and we are still waiting for you to explain where it came from.

Bottom line: this 'underlying principle' Thing of yours is smoke and mirrors, a jedi wave and and a waste of your typing time, and our post -reading. Time for a new apologetic, if you have any.

As I indicated in post #'s 58, 61 and 73, I haven't been including personal observations which lead me in the direction of suspecting consciousness as, their being personal observations, I don't presume to offer them as evidence to others (suffice it to say that I've seen Littlewood's Law of Miracles violated often enough to render it usless in my opinion).

You don't seem to have minded wasting your own typing time here, apparently finding my position such a serious threat that you've had to go all out to take it down.

I'm still invoking fewer agencies than you are.

I could say the same about you. You've spent enough time arguing for what I am sure I remember you thought was Intelligent (that is, a god), and it makes you a theist arguing against atheism, and I have seen others do similar before. I have seen them try to urge me not to waste my time, such as I'm not going to convince anyone and other Theistic 'atheists please shut up and go away' polemics. I am appreciative that you are so concerned for the use of my valuable time, but if you wanted to stop wasting it, you could cease your prolonged and repetitive peddling of a sort of Kalam apologetics (a god -claim dressed up to look like it is something else) and, since it isn't even important OTHER than as a springboard (for others) to the Bible, I think you might save the time - wasting to start off.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
but if you wanted to stop wasting it, you could cease your prolonged and repetitive peddling of a sort of Kalam apologetics (a god -claim dressed up to look like it is something else) and, since it isn't even important OTHER than as a springboard (for others) to the Bible, I think you might save the time - wasting to start off.

I've been trying real hard to benefit of the doubt this thing, and just as hard not to "get ahead" of the argument, but we sure oughtn fuss at folks who draw the same conclusion you have here.

It's why I'm trying to pin this thing down to some sort of working definition. Of course we gotta consider me and a light bulb only look alike when that bulb's done been dimmed