A remote Island

[rowen]

You wake up in the middle of the Pacific.

You find wrapped bread on a table

Did some entity put the bread there at one stage?

Yes or No

[Goat]

How about you explicitly answer my question then. God is or is not beyond reason.

the existence we can reason,
however the nature of God, only dimly from the natural worlld

scientists spent 20 years and 6 billion dollars on the recent particle accelerator project in the news, to find a so called "god particle", a substance which pervades the universe,

they know that such a substance is there, they reason it, but not what it is composed off

the Higgs Boson, also known as the Higgs Particle, which was named in the popular press as the "God Particle" (notice, popular press), might not exist. If the standard model is wrong (and it might be), they won't find that particle.

That opens up a whole new bunch of excitement... because it invalidates on of the major theories of matter.

[Beto]

Yeap, the scientists have made clear that not finding the particle is not a waste of money, and is just as exciting. It seems to me, in fact, that not finding the particle justifies the money spent more. Seems like more of a waste to spend so much money to find something already theorized to exist, just to make sure it's there.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

What I infer from this is,

We do not object from a manufactured object that it is from human hands

We see bread that is wrapped, aha there is intelligence behind it!

We see a table, it is carved, aha there is a carver behind it

We see a beautifully done sculpture, and there must be a sculptor behind it

We see a model of the Earth and there is a brilliant artist behind it

but the whole Earth has no reasoning behind it,

the whole Earth has no intelligence, has no artistry

Yet the Earth is like a little Island in the Universe

that has everything provided for

and if we stray off that Island we are hopelessly out of our depth

as we would be if we strayed onto Mars or some other planet, that are practically barren

the fruits of the Earth, are more refined then mere bread

Water tastes far better then coca cola

Water does not taster like acid

The means to a pleasing and enjoyable life are there,

but it is all a matter of chance

So I wonder what what position really takes greater "faith"

Analogy is in the end, a poor vessel for an argument.

In the case of your analogy, the bread and table are wholly out of place on the island. They are things that logic tells us will not get to the island without some sort of human intervention (as we, in fact, created these objects). The earth, and the wildlife on it, however, are not out of place. They fit perfectly with the environment they are in. They are no anomaly, but highly specialized and adapted to their surroundings.

The loaf of bread and table on the desert island are far more comparable to an organism that, for example, breathes iron living on earth. The organism is an anomaly in its surroundings, like the loaf of bread on the island, but we are not an anomaly. We fit in with our surroundings quite well, so logic says that we belong in these surroundings, and in no way points to us being deliberately placed in these surroundings.

[rowen]

If we can reason the existence of god, then god is susceptible to reason.

To a very limited degree. The essential nature of God can never be significantly reasoned. The blind man can sense the fire, but not the form of the fire. He can touch the fire, and then get burnt. He thus knows a characteristic of the fire, that it is incredible painful, but he does not know the external appearance of the fire, nor what the fire is composed of.

In a similar vein, we can reason characteristics of God.

From the Universe we know from Scientiic Study numeous Characteristics:

-The Universe that is X in Size

-The Universe is composed of X, Y and Z Matter

-The Universe is governed by this particular set of laws

If we conclude the Universe is from God, then we see characteristics of the Universe above, as not merely elements in randomly generated nature, but we are reading the mind of God, albeit a very miniscule aspect of it. Scientists cannot even work out the functions of the human mind, and how it enables the 'I', that is existence

Let us use it to prove he exists. Clearly you believe in god, so why not lay out your reasoned argument and we can, as I suggested before, analyze it. Test its validity and then if it passed that test, test its soundness. If it passes both then I would be inclined to believe you when you say there is a god. Let us begin then, what is the reasoning which forces us to conclude god exists?

Not to tread old ground too much, but

Arguments from Logical Necessity


1) Nothing material exists of itself
2) The World exists and is material
3) The World did not exist of itself
4) The world requires the immaterial to create it


5) The Immaterial exists
6) The immaterial cannot be caused by the material
7) The immaterial has no cause, and is what we term “God� or “spirit� or “intelligence�











Argument from Design

1) Michelangelo created the Sistine Chapel
2) The Sistine Chapel required intelligence
3) The world shows manifold more intelligence then a mere painting
4) The world has intelligence behind it



Subset of above point 3: “the world shows manifold more intelligence then a mere painting�:

Point 1)The natural world has aesthetic beauty unable to be generated from random processes

Subset Point 1)
A)The aesthetic beauty of the animal world is unmatched
B)The aesthetic beauty of the rivers, rainforests, coral reefs is unmatched
C) The aesthetic beauty of humanity is umatched

Subset Point 1A)
1) Conceive an animal of greater aesthetic beauty then one in the natural world, it cannot be done

Artists cannnot conceive of animal life forms in nay way shape of form even remotely approaching that of the natural world

Subset Point 1B)

Conceive of a natural wonder greater then that in the natural world, it cannot be done

When Artists create a natural scene, they go out into nature, for it is impossible to conceive of a natural world anywhere remotely approaching our natural world

The 1800's saw art reached the pinnacle of Lanscape painting. Then came modernist art. And what is modernist art but scribble and dead cows. Why? because nothing conceivable can top nature.



Subset Point 1 C) Conceive of an intelligent reasoning being greater aesthetically then humans

Has any Hollywood filmmaker ever created a creature more aesthetic then a human? ET? The Predator? Even these creatures have the form, albeit an ugly one, of that of humans. You cannot conceive of another decent form, let alone create one even approaching the form of humans






Point 2: That the natural world has harmony and order unable to be generated from random processes

A) Humanity exists in harmony with other species
B) Ecosystems are finely tuned, that if you start playing around with the ecosystems, as humans have done particularly in the last 300 years, the internal harmony is destroyed
C) Atmospheric elements are fine tuned. When humans start messing around and abusing the Earth, Global Warming has increased and more violent weather patters have developed

Point 3 The natural world allows for enjoyment and happiness to a degree unable to be generated from natural processes
A) Food is enjoyable for humans
B) The natural ecosystems of the world is a source of enjoyment for humans




Subset of 3A

1) The foods naturally occuring in the world bring so much enjoyment that it is impossible for them to be a randomly generated act

2) The foods of the world occur in such variety that it is impossible for them to be a randomly generated act


Subset of 3B)

1) Humans derive enjoyment from the sensory expirence of the natural ecosystems of the world

2) The number of different ecosystems that provide enjoyment to humans is inadequately explained by a system of blind chance


And that’s all for now folks

What will you do if they find the origin of the universe has no intelligence guiding it, no unmoved mover, no creator god? What if the universe itself is self-generating? What if the universe is eternal? What then?

I cant imagine how prayer logically may be bunk, I can imagine "heaven" logically could be bunk, I could imagine logically that religion is also bunk, but I can never imagine God is just a concept. Science can never lead us to logical conclusions about God, only what we see as the material.

Scientists in the past have argued that their Scientific studies necessitate the existence of God, but I think ultimately it is more only an argument from reason

[Wyvern]

Arguments from Logical Necessity


1) Nothing material exists of itself
2) The World exists and is material
3) The World did not exist of itself
4) The world requires the immaterial to create it


5) The Immaterial exists
6) The immaterial cannot be caused by the material
7) The immaterial has no cause, and is what we term “God� or “spirit� or “intelligence�

The problems with this argument are many, you assume the material world needs a cause but at the same time assume the immaterial not only exists but does not require a cause. Also you state that material needs the immaterial but again state that the immaterial needs neither the material nor anything at all to be created or even possibly is eternal. This all sounds to me as nothing more than a variation on special pleading.
On the other hand if one assumes that when you say immaterial you include energy your argument would fit in with current theory for the most part. Of course this all falls apart when you insist the immaterial is god.

Argument from Design

1) Michelangelo created the Sistine Chapel
2) The Sistine Chapel required intelligence
3) The world shows manifold more intelligence then a mere painting
4) The world has intelligence behind it

The world shows that it has been formed by natural processes, none of which require an intelligence or even a plan.

Subset of above point 3: “the world shows manifold more intelligence then a mere painting�:

Point 1)The natural world has aesthetic beauty unable to be generated from random processes

Subset Point 1)
A)The aesthetic beauty of the animal world is unmatched
B)The aesthetic beauty of the rivers, rainforests, coral reefs is unmatched
C) The aesthetic beauty of humanity is umatched

Subset Point 1A)
1) Conceive an animal of greater aesthetic beauty then one in the natural world, it cannot be done

Artists cannnot conceive of animal life forms in nay way shape of form even remotely approaching that of the natural world

Subset Point 1B)

Conceive of a natural wonder greater then that in the natural world, it cannot be done

When Artists create a natural scene, they go out into nature, for it is impossible to conceive of a natural world anywhere remotely approaching our natural world

The 1800's saw art reached the pinnacle of Lanscape painting. Then came modernist art. And what is modernist art but scribble and dead cows. Why? because nothing conceivable can top nature.



Subset Point 1 C) Conceive of an intelligent reasoning being greater aesthetically then humans

Has any Hollywood filmmaker ever created a creature more aesthetic then a human? ET? The Predator? Even these creatures have the form, albeit an ugly one, of that of humans. You cannot conceive of another decent form, let alone create one even approaching the form of humans

Aesthetic beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Additionally I would say you have not read much or possibly any science fiction, many science fiction authors and artists have imagined landscapes and creatures more beautiful, impressive or intelligent than that in the natural world.
With the introduction of photography, naturalistic painting became mostly redundant so in reaction many artists started to not paint landscapes but their impressions to those landscapes. Just because you do not personally like modern art don't presuppose that it is all bad.

Point 2: That the natural world has harmony and order unable to be generated from random processes

A) Humanity exists in harmony with other species
B) Ecosystems are finely tuned, that if you start playing around with the ecosystems, as humans have done particularly in the last 300 years, the internal harmony is destroyed
C) Atmospheric elements are fine tuned. When humans start messing around and abusing the Earth, Global Warming has increased and more violent weather patters have developed

A) It can be easily seen that humanity lives largely in disharmony with other species and has caused the extinction of quite a few species and the disruptive introduction of other species outside of their natural ecosystem.
B&C)The ecosystems often go through radical changes and have done so long before humanity. The atmosphere is in a constant state of flux and change, the current hurricane season is a dramatic example of this.

[Subset of 3A

1) The foods naturally occuring in the world bring so much enjoyment that it is impossible for them to be a randomly generated act

2) The foods of the world occur in such variety that it is impossible for them to be a randomly generated act

As Ray Comfort's now infamous banana shows most of our food is not the product of a randomly generated act. They are primarily caused by human effort over many years of selective breeding to increase yield, edibility and survival over different climates.

Subset of 3B)

1) Humans derive enjoyment from the sensory expirence of the natural ecosystems of the world

2) The number of different ecosystems that provide enjoyment to humans is inadequately explained by a system of blind chance

I guess you aren't aware of the many ecosystems that are hostile to human life and in fact the majority of humanity lives within a rather limted number of ecosystems.

[JoeyKnothead]

The essential nature of God can never be significantly reasoned.

Kind of hard to reason out anything for which there is no verifiable evidence.

-The Universe that is X in Size
-The Universe is composed of X, Y and Z Matter
-The Universe is governed by this particular set of laws

If we conclude the Universe is from God, then we see characteristics of the Universe above, as not merely elements in randomly generated nature, but we are reading the mind of God, albeit a very miniscule aspect of it. Scientists cannot even work out the functions of the human mind, and how it enables the 'I', that is existence

I see nothing in the stated examples to conclude the universe to be from God. Scientists have done a great job working out many functions of the human mind. 'I' is merely a self awareness exhibited by various animals, as well as humans. Isn't the weight placed on 'I' only as warranted as one's incredulity?

Argument from Design:
1) We have the painting itself, and many verified proofs that Michelangelo created the Sistine Chapel, so agreed
2) Intelligence was required
3) Wrong. As a 'creation', it may contain vast stores of information, but to say it 'shows' intelligence as a 'creation' is not quite right. It only contains intelligent properties from a human perspective. Your statement here seems to border on an argument from incredulity.
4) Wrong. By incorrectly arriving at 3, you can't then go on to 4.

3) point 1- Computers have the ability to generate aesthetically beautiful images from random processes, are they God?

3)1)A) While I agree, my oldest brother would tell you that space contains far more beauty
3)1)B) See 3)1)A
3)1)C) You just said the beauty of the rivers, etc. is unmatched, so either that one is wrong, or this one is wrong, or my oldest brother was right

Subset Point 1A)
1) Conceive an animal of greater aesthetic beauty then one in the natural world, it cannot be done. Artists cannot conceive of animal life forms in nay way shape of form even remotely approaching that of the natural world

I conceive a mix of an armful of Laetitia Casta, a pinch of Jessica Simpson, and two heaping handfuls of Anna Kournikova. I win.

The 1800's saw art reached the pinnacle of Lanscape painting. Then came modernist art. And what is modernist art but scribble and dead cows. Why? because nothing conceivable can top nature.

Part of the reason for this movement was folks were getting tired of painting the natural world - they were bored with it. Where you see scribbles and dead cows, others see beauty. I personally prefer abstract art, because I can't draw landscapes/naturalistic stuff near as well.

Subset Point 1 C) Conceive of an intelligent reasoning being greater aesthetically then humans. Has any Hollywood filmmaker ever created a creature more aesthetic then a human? ET? The Predator? Even these creatures have the form, albeit an ugly one, of that of humans. You cannot conceive of another decent form, let alone create one even approaching the form of humans.

I hate to broach this subject here, but there are some who prefer relations with animals, and even inanimate objects. So I hear.

Point 2: That the natural world has harmony and order unable to be generated from random processes

A, B, and C points are all acceptable, but they do nothing other than confirm the natural order.

I cant imagine how prayer logically may be bunk, I can imagine "heaven" logically could be bunk, I could imagine logically that religion is also bunk, but I can never imagine God is just a concept. Science can never lead us to logical conclusions about God, only what we see as the material.

Scientists in the past have argued that their Scientific studies necessitate the existence of God, but I think ultimately it is more only an argument from reason

Prayer has never been scientifically, or statistically shown to be anything other than a placebo at best, and useless otherwise. It can be downright dangerous when used to replace modern medicine. I'm sure a google search will back me up on the cases of people who died while relying on prayer for a cure.

Science can never disprove God, no. What it can, and has done, is poke many holes in the concept.

(edited because if there is a satan, he is surely working through the quote tags to antagonize me)

[rowen]

I conceive a mix of an armful of Laetitia Casta, a pinch of Jessica Simpson, and two heaping handfuls of Anna Kournikova. I win.

Thats still essentially a human form

Science can never disprove God, no. What it can, and has done, is poke many holes in the concept.

Like?
l

[rowen]

Aesthetic beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Additionally I would say you have not read much or possibly any science fiction, many science fiction authors and artists have imagined landscapes and creatures more beautiful, impressive or intelligent than that in the natural world.

Such as?

With the introduction of photography, naturalistic painting became mostly redundant so in reaction many artists started to not paint landscapes but their impressions to those landscapes. Just because you do not personally like modern art don't presuppose that it is all bad.

That's what the public believes and want in museums

[JoeyKnothead]

I conceive a mix of an armful of Laetitia Casta, a pinch of Jessica Simpson, and two heaping handfuls of Anna Kournikova. I win.

Thats still essentially a human form

I lose.
But you still don't show why your point proves a God, beauty in the eye and all.

Science can never disprove God, no. What it can, and has done, is poke many holes in the concept.

Like?

The utter impossibility of the many miraculous events. Of course they were 'miraculous' but they have never been 'repeated' since, and were reported after the fact.

[QED]

nobody's assuming anything, I've always stated the creator is above categorization

Here's a simple category for you to deny then: Intention. Was the creation intentional or not? You appear to assume at least this much while I find it woefully lacking in support.

Ultimately some form of selection takes place when we consider an outcome in relation to other possibilities. The theist's assumption is that selection must always be traceable back to mind. I see no support for this broad assumption.

For example, a wonderful beach close to where I live has an interesting distribution of pebbles:

The pebbles are graded in size from fist-sized near Portland to pea-sized at Bridport.

Now of course you can argue that ultimately this is God's beach so God could indeed be the owner of mind that ordered it thus. But there are no degrees of freedom in the underlying hydrodynamics to allow any other outcome.

So when we attempt to trace original intent, we find an inevitable uncertainty (of course it should be noted that long before we arrive at the moment of creation, natural selection has woven a complex tapestry out of potentials furnished by the formation of the first stars). The uncertainty remains that of intent.

As a functional equivalent to intentional selection (mindful specification of the laws of physics if you like) there is another process that could deliver the same results for observers like us: the infinite existence of a multiverse (you must have heard of this old chestnut ) Eyes may rightly roll at such an (as yet) unprovable entity -- yet note that it shares this characteristic with another popular entity.

Until somebody can make an unambiguous distinction between God and some other functional equivalent (with respect to selecting the outcome of our existence e.g. a multiverse) then the grounds for making a theistic assumption are no better than those for the atheistic. Worse still for the theist, although the assumption can be deferred back to God's creation of the multiverse, it still leaves intent hanging in the balance: Maybe God created the multiverse for some other reason and our universe is just a byproduct. This much alone hands a shallow victory to the atheist.