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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #71

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours? I suggest you quote mine this out of your reply or try to come up with a clever way to dodge providing an answer.

Since I've said nothing about it here, you have no way of knowing what my "religion" is, though you seem to settle for assuming that it's of the conventional variety.

Nice strawman of a dodge! Saw that coming a mile away!

Please note, I never claimed to know what your religions is. Why would I care what your religion is anyway? Why would I care if you feel it is conventional or not? I care about neither unless you can start showing that you speak the truth. Do that and I will care. Until then, your personal beliefs are unimportant yet you sound as though others should think they are. I don't get that and it comes across as arrogant to boot.

Readers, note the question that was dodged:
"Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours?"
Athetotheist's answer: You don't know my religion!
Clownboat: Derp. Called that dodge a mile away. (I even suggested that you quote mine it. Pride before a fall perhaps?)

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours?

This question insinuates that I'm laying claim to some exclusively imparted divine truth. I'm doing no such thing. As I've pointed out----repeatedly----I make no claim to fully understand the nature of the principle I'm postulating. Again, I'm trying to make a case for it's existence.

:
Yep. The question here is for a 'god of Einstein' - an ordered universe so much that it is almost a natural cosmic AI. It is several steps short of even a volitional act of creation: 'Life might be a good idea..might even develop into an intelligent life -form'. This is an academic discussion and is far, far short of postulating any particular religion, or even an 'only one god' wringing its' invisible hands over our human wickedness.

[Clownboat]

[/quote]

Are all religions wrong in their claims about creation, or just all of them less yours?

This question insinuates that I'm laying claim to some exclusively imparted divine truth. I'm doing no such thing. As I've pointed out----repeatedly----I make no claim to fully understand the nature of the principle I'm postulating. Again, I'm trying to make a case for it's existence.

I never insinuated that you were laying claim to some exclusive imparted divine truth as I don't believe that imparted divine truths are a thing. So to insinuate something I don't believe exists would be really odd.

When you say you are trying to make a case for its existence, what is this 'it' you argue for?

If this it is a god concept, are all religions wrong in their claims about their 'it', or just all of them less yours?
It seems that there is special pleading at play and I'm trying to rule that out. What is different about your 'it' compared to all other 'its'.

In the end, I believe your words would be mostly meaningless because of what you said: "I make no claim to fully understand the nature of the principle I'm postulating".
Would you care to discuss a concept of mine that I claim to not understand? Would be futile speculation would it not?

Is your argument really nothing more than, "I'm trying to make a case for some undefined thing that I don't understand" (it)? If so, I would like to unsubscribe to your newsletter.

If I provided a list of all the available god concepts, would you claim that none of them reflect this 'it' you are trying to argue for? Does your 'it' really not have a name?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #82

I never insinuated that you were laying claim to some exclusive imparted divine truth as I don't believe that imparted divine truths are a thing. So to insinuate something I don't believe exists would be really odd.

I didn't say you were insinuating what you don't believe. I said you seem to be insinuating what I (supposedly) believe.

When you say you are trying to make a case for its existence, what is this 'it' you argue for?

If this it is a god concept, are all religions wrong in their claims about their 'it', or just all of them less yours?

I've addressed this question. Asking it again doesn't mean I haven't answered it.

In the end, I believe your words would be mostly meaningless because of what you said: "I make no claim to fully understand the nature of the principle I'm postulating".

Read again: I make no claim to fully understand the principle. I did refer earlier to it being an underlying principle (underlying material existence).

Would you care to discuss a concept of mine that I claim to not understand?

I believe I've been doing so. You haven't made clear to me how material existence accounts for itself.

If I provided a list of all the available god concepts, would you claim that none of them reflect this 'it' you are trying to argue for?

Would you even know how to list all god concepts?

You may "unsubscribe from my newsletter" whenever you like.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #80

I've already answered some of this postulating a nothing that doesn't need to be created is a theoretical way out of the circular problem that is infinite regression.

And I've already pointed out that your "nothing" is actually something (your "cosmic stuff") which needs an explanation of its own. And I've pointed out that referring to such something as "nothing" is logically untenable, but you seem to be circling back around to it.

Claiming a something that didn't need to b created is also a way out of it, but seems illogical or at least counter intuitive.

Doesn't that sum up your "cosmic stuff"?

As to consciousness, you rather give yourself away here with talk of neurons - that and indeed the energy that buzzes along then doing the awareness, is all matter, so a god {cosmic consciousness} would appear to require stuff

Rather, it's the universe which "requires stuff".

and then an ordering {consciousness} on top of that and all with no origin, so as to have 'god' account for creation; one more logical entity than something from nothing.

Yeah, you're circling back around to it.

I was using the neuron analogy to illustrate a search for consciousness as it relates to scale. As for it being "all matter", I was trying to point out earlier that matter, as frozen energy, has that energy stored in it. The energy stored in matter is its potential energy, its potential to do work, which is what energy is.

As to an innate consciousness in the universe, I'll have a look at the do it yourself monthly 'does science prove God?' article by Mr. A. Believer, but it seems the same problem, you need the stuff first {just as I do} and then you need it to be in order. Two processes. To suppose it appears out of nowhere already ordered as conscious is multiplying logical entities.

So conjuring an AI robot out of nothing would be easier than conjuring a toaster out of nothing? (You're the one who keeps coming back to "something from nothing".)

I had a quick look at the clickbait popular article but a 'Sign here before you can look at our website' popup appeared and I automatically leave. If the article makes a case, you will have to summarise it yourself, not send me to find your evidence for you.

Sorry you had trouble accessing the article. If you're having trouble with its assertions, however, you would do better to take it up with the scientists doing the research than with me. I wasn't leaving my evidence for you to find; I found a source and was referring you to it.

In any case, if you'd like a more "academic" source:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -universe/

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #80

I've already answered some of this postulating a nothing that doesn't need to be created is a theoretical way out of the circular problem that is infinite regression.

And I've already pointed out that your "nothing" is actually something (your "cosmic stuff") which needs an explanation of its own. And I've pointed out that referring to such something as "nothing" is logically untenable, but you seem to be circling back around to it.

Claiming a something that didn't need to b created is also a way out of it, but seems illogical or at least counter intuitive.

Doesn't that sum up your "cosmic stuff"?

As to consciousness, you rather give yourself away here with talk of neurons - that and indeed the energy that buzzes along then doing the awareness, is all matter, so a god {cosmic consciousness} would appear to require stuff

Rather, it's the universe which "requires stuff".

and then an ordering {consciousness} on top of that and all with no origin, so as to have 'god' account for creation; one more logical entity than something from nothing.

Yeah, you're circling back around to it.

I was using the neuron analogy to illustrate a search for consciousness as it relates to scale. As for it being "all matter", I was trying to point out earlier that matter, as frozen energy, has that energy stored in it. The energy stored in matter is its potential energy, its potential to do work, which is what energy is.

As to an innate consciousness in the universe, I'll have a look at the do it yourself monthly 'does science prove God?' article by Mr. A. Believer, but it seems the same problem, you need the stuff first {just as I do} and then you need it to be in order. Two processes. To suppose it appears out of nowhere already ordered as conscious is multiplying logical entities.

So conjuring an AI robot out of nothing would be easier than conjuring a toaster out of nothing? (You're the one who keeps coming back to "something from nothing".)

I had a quick look at the clickbait popular article but a 'Sign here before you can look at our website' popup appeared and I automatically leave. If the article makes a case, you will have to summarise it yourself, not send me to find your evidence for you.

Sorry you had trouble accessing the article. If you're having trouble with its assertions, however, you would do better to take it up with the scientists doing the research than with me. I wasn't leaving my evidence for you to find; I found a source and was referring you to it.

In any case, if you'd like a more "academic" source:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -universe/

Sorry. Your efforts to insist that a reduction out of the turtles by shoving another turtle in there does not change the idea, or suggestion of an idea, of a 'something' (if you insist) that is nothinglike enough that it does not require to be created, but can itself create (or can become) the basic stuff. It merely makes your stack of turtles longer. Insisting on calling it 'something' does not change the idea, or mere idea of an idea. It just puts a label on it that you can dismissively equivocate. I'm not falling for it.

I'm also sorry if you can't present any persuasive theory or explanation for an intelligent universe (or Cosmos). Until you can I must remain without any decent evidence for such before me. to consider It also strikes me that, even if you had decent evidence for an intelligent cosmos, that wouldn't address the problem of the extra logical entity (Intelligence) that I pointed out, where did the intelligence come from as well as the stuff it was made from? You have two puzzles; I only have one. You pretty much made my case for me - yes a toaster requires one step of origin, a toaster with an AI requires two. Thank you for such a handy analogy.

The unsettling shape of the evolved god is shuffling closer in the wings. Did I need to whistle for it?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #85

Sorry. Your efforts to insist that a reduction out of the turtles by shoving another turtle in there does not change the idea, or suggestion of an idea, of a 'something' (if you insist) that is nothinglike enough that it does not require to be created, but can itself create (or can become) the basic stuff. It merely makes your stack of turtles longer. Insisting on calling it 'something' does not change the idea, or mere idea of an idea. It just puts a label on it that you can dismissively equivocate. I'm not falling for it.

The idea that something can be "nothinglike enough" to pass for nothing is nonsensical on its face. To pass for nothing, something would have to do nothing.

You have two puzzles; I only have one.

That's like saying, "You have to pull two rabbits out of an empty hat; I only have to pull one out.," or "You're trying to make 2 + 2 equal 200 while I'm only trying to make 2 + 2 equal 100." You seem to assume that the universe is going to give you a break because your magic trick is a little shorter. Logic doesn't work that way, and a purely materialistic universe doesn't allow you to abandon the rules of logic. If you're suggesting that it does, then you are making my argument for me.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #85

Sorry. Your efforts to insist that a reduction out of the turtles by shoving another turtle in there does not change the idea, or suggestion of an idea, of a 'something' (if you insist) that is nothinglike enough that it does not require to be created, but can itself create (or can become) the basic stuff. It merely makes your stack of turtles longer. Insisting on calling it 'something' does not change the idea, or mere idea of an idea. It just puts a label on it that you can dismissively equivocate. I'm not falling for it.

The idea that something can be "nothinglike enough" to pass for nothing is nonsensical on its face. To pass for nothing, something would have to do nothing.

You have two puzzles; I only have one.

That's like saying, "You have to pull two rabbits out of an empty hat; I only have to pull one out.," or "You're trying to make 2 + 2 equal 200 while I'm only trying to make 2 + 2 equal 100." You seem to assume that the universe is going to give you a break because your magic trick is a little shorter. Logic doesn't work that way, and a purely materialistic universe doesn't allow you to abandon the rules of logic. If you're suggesting that it does, then you are making my argument for me.

What, exactly is your argument?

There's something we observe - the universe.

There's something you propose to explain the universe existing.

What is that something?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #85

Sorry. Your efforts to insist that a reduction out of the turtles by shoving another turtle in there does not change the idea, or suggestion of an idea, of a 'something' (if you insist) that is nothinglike enough that it does not require to be created, but can itself create (or can become) the basic stuff. It merely makes your stack of turtles longer. Insisting on calling it 'something' does not change the idea, or mere idea of an idea. It just puts a label on it that you can dismissively equivocate. I'm not falling for it.

The idea that something can be "nothinglike enough" to pass for nothing is nonsensical on its face. To pass for nothing, something would have to do nothing.

You have two puzzles; I only have one.

That's like saying, "You have to pull two rabbits out of an empty hat; I only have to pull one out.," or "You're trying to make 2 + 2 equal 200 while I'm only trying to make 2 + 2 equal 100." You seem to assume that the universe is going to give you a break because your magic trick is a little shorter. Logic doesn't work that way, and a purely materialistic universe doesn't allow you to abandon the rules of logic. If you're suggesting that it does, then you are making my argument for me.

There's a clear bias here, you ought to see that you are pretty much admitting that no matter how possible, or implausible, feasible or counter intuitive is anything I may use to designate the origins of everything which really has to have happened somehow, to dd the logical entity of Intelligence makes theism always more to claim and thus the less preferable theory. It's going to be like that whichever way you shuffle the cards. You seem to miss that I'm not so much presenting a valid hypothesis but a preferable option out of the impasse of eternal something or infinite regression.

I don't even need to argue for materialism; material exists, there is no real evidence that a god does. I'm not even going to ask 'what other explanation is there?' but say that it's the option that demands less logical entities, which is all I've ever said, other than experiments that might offer some indirect support.

Still, let's be practical about this, I'm arguing that the logic and even the science is sound, but it is an unknown and I'm not going to die in a ditch for eternity, infinite turtles or a rabbit or two out of a hat. i see more point in simply looking for a god and not seeing one, so any Comic Origin hypothesis is less likely if it involved a hands -on god....Which is really the only thing that we need worry about. If you want to die in a ditch for a cosmic intelligence, you are welcome. The only thing that I'm activist about is organised religion. And because they will use the 'who made everything, then?' apologetic is the reason I even bother to counter Kalam and its' apologetic Ilk

This isn't a flounce of course; I'm willing to keep on explaining your flawed reasoning until one or other of us drops dead or the Mods tell us to stop before we all do.

[Clownboat]

I didn't say you were insinuating what you don't believe. I said you seem to be insinuating what I (supposedly) believe.

OK. I see nothing worthy to debate here.

When you say you are trying to make a case for its existence, what is this 'it' you argue for?

If this it is a god concept, are all religions wrong in their claims about their 'it', or just all of them less yours?

I've addressed this question. Asking it again doesn't mean I haven't answered it.

Sorry, I must have missed it. What is your answer? Again, I appoligize for not seeing it the first time.

If I provided a list of all the available god concepts, would you claim that none of them reflect this 'it' you are trying to argue for?

Would you even know how to list all god concepts?

I could try. Why did you dodge my question?
Would your 'it' fall on the list of one of the available god concepts out there or not?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #85

Sorry. Your efforts to insist that a reduction out of the turtles by shoving another turtle in there does not change the idea, or suggestion of an idea, of a 'something' (if you insist) that is nothinglike enough that it does not require to be created, but can itself create (or can become) the basic stuff. It merely makes your stack of turtles longer. Insisting on calling it 'something' does not change the idea, or mere idea of an idea. It just puts a label on it that you can dismissively equivocate. I'm not falling for it.

The idea that something can be "nothinglike enough" to pass for nothing is nonsensical on its face. To pass for nothing, something would have to do nothing.

You have two puzzles; I only have one.

That's like saying, "You have to pull two rabbits out of an empty hat; I only have to pull one out.," or "You're trying to make 2 + 2 equal 200 while I'm only trying to make 2 + 2 equal 100." You seem to assume that the universe is going to give you a break because your magic trick is a little shorter. Logic doesn't work that way, and a purely materialistic universe doesn't allow you to abandon the rules of logic. If you're suggesting that it does, then you are making my argument for me.

What, exactly is your argument?

There's something we observe - the universe.

There's something you propose to explain the universe existing.

What is that something?

Oh oh, pick me! Pick me!
That something is... I don't know.

If a person wants to be provided an answer as to how the universe and us humans came to be, there are countless religions to choose from that supply answers. Who knows, maybe one of the religions got it right! How could we ever pretend to know though? That escapes me, so until more knowledge is gained, I must be content with not knowing.

I note that not all humans seem comfortable with not knowing. Again, for such people it seems humans have invented religions and god concepts. I say this because it is not logical for humans to have invented thousands of false gods while assuming one of the religions actually had a god behind it. It's like acknowledging that movies are created by humans, while trying to argue that this one movie here, this one was inspired by a god unlike all the other movies out there.