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 TRANSPONDER in post #112

'When you don't know the explanation, say a big invisible human did it'.

At what point did I propose "a big invisible human"? A popular strawman, but it doesn't stand.

'agnostics' (irreligious theists Aka "Deists", and I don't mind the label so long as they know what they mean)

If you're going to use the label "Deist", you should make sure that you know what it means. There's a lot of ground to cover under that term.

I may have said this before but it's not all about you. I am talking about humanity in general and its' instinct to explain the unknown by a 'big invisible human' doing it. That sid, I would risk a very large bet that your Oz behind the curtain of veiled references to Underlying Reality or whatever term you used which you were eventually obliged to put your hand up to being Intelligent is rather closely related to this big invisible human that I speak of.

I know what I mean by Deist - I have already said as much 'Irreligious Theist'. It can cover, as you say, a lot of other ground (meanings) accurate or not.

Are you conceding that a deistic entity is feasible? There's no shame in that; even your philosophical father figure Richard Dawkins went so far.

[JoeyKnothead]

Are you conceding that a deistic entity is feasible? There's no shame in that; even your philosophical father figure Richard Dawkins went so far.

Are you saying this notion you've been getting at is some kind of deity?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #112

'When you don't know the explanation, say a big invisible human did it'.

At what point did I propose "a big invisible human"? A popular strawman, but it doesn't stand.

'agnostics' (irreligious theists Aka "Deists", and I don't mind the label so long as they know what they mean)

If you're going to use the label "Deist", you should make sure that you know what it means. There's a lot of ground to cover under that term.

I may have said this before but it's not all about you. I am talking about humanity in general and its' instinct to explain the unknown by a 'big invisible human' doing it. That sid, I would risk a very large bet that your Oz behind the curtain of veiled references to Underlying Reality or whatever term you used which you were eventually obliged to put your hand up to being Intelligent is rather closely related to this big invisible human that I speak of.

I know what I mean by Deist - I have already said as much 'Irreligious Theist'. It can cover, as you say, a lot of other ground (meanings) accurate or not.

Are you conceding that a deistic entity is feasible? There's no shame in that; even your philosophical father figure Richard Dawkins went so far.

I'm saying that nobody knows the answer and a case for a cosmic mind can be made. I'm also saying that it hasn't been made yet, either with science, philosophy or a plausible model and that logic says there is no reason to credit let alone believe, in a comic mind without any decent evidence for it. The good old 'anything else is impossible' is not logical but faith- claim. The logic says atheism until there is a better case made than Kalam. Deists are our friends even if they hate us, and they may have reasons to think that a non-religious god is reasonable, but the fact is that it isn't, and the gap for deist -god is closing rather than opening, because it is not so sure now what is impossible.

I won't go into the flashing red lights of the reference to Dawkins as a personal father figure, let alone 'philosophical' which has its' own set of red flags. I'll just say it is a little more basis to suspect that what we got here is not a doubter that sees a case for a sorta -god, but a God believer who has had to accept that Religion makes no sense and had to go deist, but like many of the anti -atheist non -believers, they fight fiercely for this non - disprovable cosmic mind, and very much on the attack on atheism because (without the Bible) they do not have a shred of a case other than atheism is wrong. Fact is, I have seen your type many, many times before.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #123

The good old 'anything else is impossible' is not logical but faith- claim.

But I haven't put forth that "anything else is impossible". I've put forth that the material universe accounting for itself is impossible.

The logic says atheism until there is a better case made than Kalam.

You rely a lot on Kalam----a handy excuse for ignoring other arguments. You also fall back on nobody knowing, but try to fudge atheism into first place.

a God believer who has had to accept that Religion makes no sense and had to go deist

This is just an attempt to put a negative spin on a reasonable position.

the gap for deist -god is closing rather than opening, because it is not so sure now what is impossible.

As I've pointed out, there isn't a "gap" to fill when discussing first causes. And even if there were, uncertainty of what is impossible would widen it, not narrow it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #123

The good old 'anything else is impossible' is not logical but faith- claim.

But I haven't put forth that "anything else is impossible". I've put forth that the material universe accounting for itself is impossible.

The logic says atheism until there is a better case made than Kalam.

You rely a lot on Kalam----a handy excuse for ignoring other arguments. You also fall back on nobody knowing, but try to fudge atheism into first place.

a God believer who has had to accept that Religion makes no sense and had to go deist

This is just an attempt to put a negative spin on a reasonable position.

the gap for deist -god is closing rather than opening, because it is not so sure now what is impossible.

As I've pointed out, there isn't a "gap" to fill when discussing first causes. And even if there were, uncertainty of what is impossible would widen it, not narrow it.

You can't fool me. the material universe posing a question of origin (which is to treat your "material universe accounting for itself is impossible." more positively than it deserves) merely calls for hypothesese, and we know what yours is - an underlying reality which is (as you eventually admitted) intelligent and is the alternative to any material hypothesis. This is goddunnit (though not Biblegod), and no doubt about it, and that you try to be so evasive about it doesn't make you look too good.

This doesn't look so good, either. "You rely a lot on Kalam----a handy excuse for ignoring other arguments. " First cause is what Kalam is. no doubt about thaty either. I could say Goddunnit, First cause or Kalam. To try to craftily insinuate that I am using it in some underhand way rather makes you look bad, not me..

Ner does this do tyou much credit: "You also fall back on nobody knowing, but try to fudge atheism into first place." It is hardly logically deniable that a claim we don't know to be true is not believed until we do know. Thus atheism (based on not knowing) Is in first place and you accusing me of fudging it merely shows up that you are trying to fudge God into first place and worse, trying to cover up that this is what you're doing.

Finally, you either misunderstand or misrepresent the point - or probably, both. Not knowing what originated the cosmic stuff may widen options, but that wasn't the point which was that a claim for an intelligent creator (and despite your attempts at evasion that is what you have eventually 'fessed up to) is the one that it narrowing as a gap for god.

[Clownboat]

The good old 'anything else is impossible' is not logical but faith- claim.

But I haven't put forth that "anything else is impossible". I've put forth that the material universe accounting for itself is impossible.

If fairy farts truly are the source of how universes get created, then a material universe accounting for itself (via the fairy farts) is quite possible and also explains all the gas quite nicely.
Why should we look to human inventions that we call the gods when fairy farts created our universe is an ample explanation?

The truth is, no one knows how the universe came to be. Virtually every religion created by humans has a creation story though, so what are the odds that they are all false, except for the one you claim is true? God concepts and fairy farts both explain how a universe could have formed. I don't claim to know how the universe came to be though, do you? Don't be lukewarm now...

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #126]

If fairy farts truly are the source of how universes get created, then a material universe accounting for itself (via the fairy farts) is quite possible and also explains all the gas quite nicely.
Why should we look to human inventions that we call the gods when fairy farts created our universe is an ample explanation?

I think this is logically wrong because it doesn't take into account the source of the "Fairy Farts" and simply claims the farts account for themselves.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #125

This is goddunnit

"goddunnit" is another appeal to ridicule.

a claim for an intelligent creator (and despite your attempts at evasion that is what you have eventually 'fessed up to) is the one that it narrowing as a gap for god.

You're still hanging on the notion that there's a "gap" involved with first causes. There isn't.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
You're still hanging on the notion that there's a "gap" involved with first causes. There isn't.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you're getting at.

I do so without trying to assume your thoughts, but it does seem as if you're proposing a sentient, intelligent (and immensely powerful) entity behind the universe.

If so, the gap I see is where this cause "becomes" sentient, among other seemingly anthropomorphic properties.

Am I even close to what you're getting at?

[Athetotheist]

...
You're still hanging on the notion that there's a "gap" involved with first causes. There isn't.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you're getting at.

I do so without trying to assume your thoughts, but it does seem as if you're proposing a sentient, intelligent (and immensely powerful) entity behind the universe.

If so, the gap I see is where this cause "becomes" sentient, among other seemingly anthropomorphic properties.

Am I even close to what you're getting at?

The "gap" generally referred to is an area of unknown between two areas of "known"----like, "We know that rain falls and we know that weeds spring up after, but how do the weeds know to spring up after the rain?"----the "gap" being filled by the knowledge of germination. When it comes to the question of first causes, however, we have only one side to work in. There's no "known" on the other side to limit the unknown to a measurable "gap".

As for intelligence, which is to say "sentience", it seems a biological bias to bind sentience to the concept of time if we assume that the cosmos is eternal. The sentience behind an eternal cosmos wouldn't have to evolve, being---by definition---timeless.