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

[JoeyKnothead]

...
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.

Ok, so you're saying a sentient entity is the first cause?

[William]

...
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.

Ok, so you're saying a sentient entity is the first cause?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
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.

The problem there is that intelligence - or consciousness at least - IS biological. True, it can be traced back to chemical evolution and the reactions of matter, but we do not consider the reactions of matter to be intelligence, but unthinking physics. Thus your definition is flawed and - while nobody knows one way or the other - this 'definition' of a timeless (Aka Eternal) Cosmic intelligence is much more a product of biological (not to say theistic) bias than is seeing intelligence as finite and limited to critters. Nice try, but no prize.

[Athetotheist]

...
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.

Ok, so you're saying a sentient entity is the first cause?

I'm saying that it's within reason to allow for a first cause to be sentient.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #133

The problem there is that intelligence - or consciousness at least - IS biological. True, it can be traced back to chemical evolution and the reactions of matter, but we do not consider the reactions of matter to be intelligence, but unthinking physics. Thus your definition is flawed and - while nobody knows one way or the other - this 'definition' of a timeless (Aka Eternal) Cosmic intelligence is much more a product of biological (not to say theistic) bias than is seeing intelligence as finite and limited to critters. Nice try, but no prize.

The problem with that is that limiting consciousness to the only form in which we've experienced it is an assumption. Consciousness being biological doesn't mean that it can only be biological.

[JoeyKnothead]

[I'm saying that it's within reason to allow for a first cause to be sentient.

This raises the issue of where did that sentience come from.

Our best data indicates sentience requires some form of energy, so energy must exist prior to sentience. And if energy is converted into matter by some brilliant Jew, well there we go.

It also raises the question of how did that sentience put it together enough energy, that an entire universe could be created simply at the drop of a thought.

We can see, much more rationally, that sentience is a property of biological evolution, where ever greater sensory input requires / allows for an accumulated bit of it, up to where thoughts are made. New thoughts, novel and unique, all cause some critter had the audacity to determine up from down, and dark from light. Keep doing that, and you eventually get to an eighth grade dropout who can muster him up the skill, the sentience, to type this out and post it to the heavens.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #133

The problem there is that intelligence - or consciousness at least - IS biological. True, it can be traced back to chemical evolution and the reactions of matter, but we do not consider the reactions of matter to be intelligence, but unthinking physics. Thus your definition is flawed and - while nobody knows one way or the other - this 'definition' of a timeless (Aka Eternal) Cosmic intelligence is much more a product of biological (not to say theistic) bias than is seeing intelligence as finite and limited to critters. Nice try, but no prize.

The problem with that is that limiting consciousness to the only form in which we've experienced it is an assumption. Consciousness being biological doesn't mean that it can only be biological.

The problem with that is the usual one with theist apologetics - assuming as a given that which you are trying to prove; it becomes, as you are a somewhat more reasonable deist, taking the undisprovable possibility of a cosmic mind for which there is no shred of decent evidence, and the existence of human intelligence and the evolutionary background of animal brains and material reactions before that, for which there is no point in asking for proof, because it is right there, and yet somehow maintaining that the cosmic mind is the more plausible.

On evidence, just as on logic, as in the whole god - debate - science and logic supports non -belief, not god -belief.

Let me help you out chum. You are not going to win this one and if you think you are throwing dust in all our eyes with a Lane-Craigish water muddying of philosophical-sounding sophistic jargon - mixing, let me disabuse you. We can see exactly what you are up to, because the faith- based attempts to 'make the worst case appear the better' (Aristophanes) are quite obvious.

As I say, since you appear to be a deist and not a religionist, I have no quarrel with you, Good sir knight and I take no joy in lopping your arms off, and your sortagod - case might do better in trying to find signs of a god or ways in which a god might have come to exist (such as an evolved god, even though your theism dislikes this as it is against Theist Dogma....oh yes it is (1) but trying to make first cause (Kalam), consciousness (or indeed Morals) or the other one of the Big Three (origins of Life, including I/C and DNA codes) the logically or evidentially more probable or plausible hypothesis is not gonna work. So you might give up your particular hobby -horse and get back to the Op which is: 'suppose a creator of the cosmic stuff was demonstrated, is there any evidence that it is still around?'

To which the answer is, Logically an intelligent creator should still be around, unless there is evidence of a cosmic chemistry - set with signs of an ancient colossal explosion. But equally, on evidence, it is not particularly interested in us, and the evidence for evolution, not design, makes that the more probable hypothesis. Which is why Kalam doesn't matter unless it is used as a springboard to the Bible.

(1) what is that folks; you doubt me? "the Cosmic Mind is by Definition eternal". There's your Faithbased Theist Dogma, right there.

[Athetotheist]

[I'm saying that it's within reason to allow for a first cause to be sentient.

This raises the issue of where did that sentience come from.

Our best data indicates sentience requires some form of energy, so energy must exist prior to sentience. And if energy is converted into matter by some brilliant Jew, well there we go.

It also raises the question of how did that sentience put it together enough energy, that an entire universe could be created simply at the drop of a thought.

We can see, much more rationally, that sentience is a property of biological evolution, where ever greater sensory input requires / allows for an accumulated bit of it, up to where thoughts are made. New thoughts, novel and unique, all cause some critter had the audacity to determine up from down, and dark from light. Keep doing that, and you eventually get to an eighth grade dropout who can muster him up the skill, the sentience, to type this out and post it to the heavens.

Biology reduces to chemistry. Chemistry reduces to physics. Physics reduces to.......?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #137

taking the undisprovable possibility of a cosmic mind for which there is no shred of decent evidence, and the existence of human intelligence and the evolutionary background of animal brains and material reactions before that, for which there is no point in asking for proof, because it is right there

"Material reactions before that" back to......what?

"the Cosmic Mind is by Definition eternal". There's your Faithbased Theist Dogma, right there.

What I actually said was.....

The sentience behind an eternal cosmos wouldn't have to evolve, being---by definition---timeless.

You're throwing another brickbat at my postulation after sidestepping my argument.

On evidence, just as on logic, as in the whole god - debate - science and logic supports non -belief, not god -belief.

Not according to the experts.....

https://thesciencebehindit.org/does-sci ... ce-of-god/

[JoeyKnothead]

[I'm saying that it's within reason to allow for a first cause to be sentient.

This raises the issue of where did that sentience come from.

Our best data indicates sentience requires some form of energy, so energy must exist prior to sentience. And if energy is converted into matter by some brilliant Jew, well there we go.

It also raises the question of how did that sentience put it together enough energy, that an entire universe could be created simply at the drop of a thought.

We can see, much more rationally, that sentience is a property of biological evolution, where ever greater sensory input requires / allows for an accumulated bit of it, up to where thoughts are made. New thoughts, novel and unique, all cause some critter had the audacity to determine up from down, and dark from light. Keep doing that, and you eventually get to an eighth grade dropout who can muster him up the skill, the sentience, to type this out and post it to the heavens.

Biology reduces to chemistry. Chemistry reduces to physics. Physics reduces to.......?

Beats me.

Other'n that, I'm gonna conclude you can't refute the meat of my position.