One God

[Enki]

Again??!!??

Indeed. See post 20. I was quite willing to give you the benfit of the doubt, but as you repeated the same distortion in post 21, you are either persisting in twisting my words or you don't understand what you are writing.

OK  let me get this straight, You believe there could be reasons out there but they haven't been presented to you?

No need. The need for comfort, ameliorating the fear of death, cultural norms, emotional security are all reasons why a person might believe in God.

Ah well here I think you are confusing reason with empirical evidence. In other words many scientific theories of the past were wrong but they were not unreasonable

Quite correct, but I am not talking about scientific theories, I am talking about the lack of any sort of objective evidence, nothing more and nothing less. Hence, on the basis of this, I would suggest that it is entirely rational for me to have no belief in God.

Not sure why the inverted commas are there

I simply quoted the word you used

Yes, I used to think that adequately explained things but there are a couple of aspects to  them 1) How do they arise ? 2) What about the explanatory gaps.

Same problems with God. How did he arise? What about the problems attached to a God of the omnis?

In other words how do we get from say intelligence to consciousness. The answer was by leaps of faith,

That assumes that they are necessarily related. I don't know of any 'leap of faith' which explains either or illustrates the development from one to the other.

I believed as you do that science would have the answer, and that is inescapably a belief, that science has the answer

I am open to any form of objective evidence. It doesn't have to be science, although, practically, at the moment, that looks like our best bet.

No I have given the argument from contingency and have pointed out that beliefs such as empiricism, scientism(faith in science)and naturalism are themselves unevidenced beliefs although they work as tools in certain contexts and your confusion of reason and empirical evidence

No confusion at all. As I suggest above, it is entirely rational for me not to have a belief in God when I have no reason to suppose it exists.

The argument from contingency can be refuted of course, and, even if accepted, there is no reason to assume that the necessary entity is translatable as a conscious entity.

So, I leave you with the same question as before. What method(s) of investigation as to whether God exists or not have less limitations than natural investigation?

[Free Willy]

No need. The need for comfort,

Yet people find the idea of a God who reminds them they are not on the right moral path quite uncomfortable

ameliorating the fear of death,

How do you manage it?

cultural norms,

England and Wales have a religious minority

emotional security

Again how do you manage ?  Also religion,  as I have said involves surrendering the ego.Would that afford you emotional security do you think?

Again, I thought all these things too until I actually looked into it.

[torridon]

..
We may not know what that Intelligence really is or how it works.....but that it exists is quite clear and has certainly been detected.

If that were true, then where is the evidence ?  Post up a link so we can all have a look

[Gordon]

What are the properties of a necessary being?

No idea - but since your question is overtly fallacious (you are begging the question here) it's one that I don't have to bother considering until such times you guys can set out a substantive basis for your assertion there is such a thing (instead of it being a handy assertion to stop an apparently infinite regress).

[Sriram]

Nope, what is absurd is the notion that something complex must always have been created by something more complex. Now firstly that logically cannot be applied consistently without infinite regress. Secondly it is typically based on a subjective anthropocentric notion of 'complexity' that somehow posits that a human is more complex than a tree, or a weather system or the sun etc etc. And thirdly it defies evidence, where we see time and time again what we would describe as complexity arising spontaneously through fundamental energetics and random variation. Snow flakes anyone?

Infinite regress is unavoidable in any case. No one has any idea of a first cause and that will continue to remain elusive.

Once again... random variation.....!!!   Randomness is a cop out not an explanation.

[Free Willy]

No idea - but since your question is overtly fallacious (you are begging the question here) it's one that I don't have to bother considering until such times you guys can set out a substantive basis for your assertion there is such a thing (instead of it being a handy assertion to stop an apparently infinite regress).

Wrong, Your logic would render the discussion of the properties of any notional entity fallacious.

[Outrider]

Infinite regress is unavoidable in any case. No one has any idea of a first cause and that will continue to remain elusive.

Why is that problematic?

Once again... random variation.....!!!   Randomness is a cop out not an explanation.

No, randomness is the observation - see those random elements in reality. The logical conclusion from that randomness is the theory, and that theory stands up to continued examination.

O.

[Gordon]

Wrong, Your logic would render the discussion of the properties of any notional entity fallacious.

Give that boy a coconut!

[Free Willy]

Indeed. See post 20. I was quite willing to give you the benfit of the doubt, but as you repeated the same distortion in post 21, you are either persisting in twisting my words or you don't understand what you are writing.

No need. The need for comfort, ameliorating the fear of death, cultural norms, emotional security are all reasons why a person might believe in God.

Quite correct, but I am not talking about scientific theories, I am talking about the lack of any sort of objective evidence, nothing more and nothing less. Hence, on the basis of this, I would suggest that it is entirely rational for me to have no belief in God.

I simply quoted the word you used

Same problems with God. How did he arise? What about the problems attached to a God of the omnis?

That assumes that they are necessarily related. I don't know of any 'leap of faith' which explains either or illustrates the development from one to the other.

I am open to any form of objective evidence. It doesn't have to be science, although, practically, at the moment, that looks like our best bet.

No confusion at all. As I suggest above, it is entirely rational for me not to have a belief in God when I have no reason to suppose it exists.

The argument from contingency can be refuted of course, and, even if accepted, there is no reason to assume that the necessary entity is translatable as a conscious entity.

So, I leave you with the same question as before. What method(s) of investigation as to whether God exists or not have less limitations than natural investigation?

You are free to state the argument from contingency and indeed refute it here and now.

Can one be open to any kind of evidence when evidence means evidence? I'm not sure you can.

In terms of methodologies, all methodologies mentioned on this forum actually have turned out to be science and that is based on physicalism which has no physical method of proving itself. Moreover science doesn't do God.

[Free Willy]

Give that boy a coconut!

Thank you, not sure about your statement about the necessary being being a "handy assertion". It is explained by the argument from contingency so cannot be described as an assertion I would have thought...is it one of Dawkins?

[Gordon]

Thank you, not sure about your statement about the necessary being being a "handy assertion". It is explained by the argument from contingency so cannot be described as an assertion I would have thought...is it one of Dawkins?

Seems to be to be little more that a contrived way to stop a regress.

[ProfessorDavey]

Infinite regress is unavoidable in any case. No one has any idea of a first cause and that will continue to remain elusive.

Sriram - you regularly fall into Vlad's narrow anthropocentric thinking but now you've drifted into another of Vlad's faulty thought processes - namely considering that time runs constantly and in one direction only. The notion of a 'first' cause implies that it happens before other things - but that only makes sense if time is constant and unilinear. If time (as we think it to be) is not constant and its appearance to us as humans as running in one direction only ie merely an artefact of observation then the notion of 'first' or 'last' or 'before' or 'after' etc have no fundamental meaning.

[Free Willy]

Sriram - you regularly fall into Vlad's narrow anthropocentric thinking but now you've drifted into another of Vlad's faulty thought processes - namely considering that time runs constantly and in one direction only. The notion of a 'first' cause implies that it happens before other things - but that only makes sense if time is constant and unilinear. If time (as we think it to be) is not constant and its appearance to us as humans as running in one direction only ie merely an artefact of observation then the notion of 'first' or 'last' or 'before' or 'after' etc have no fundamental meaning.

I am well aware of different temporal theories and am unphased by infinite regresses since even they need not be necessary entities. The question remains, "why this infinite regression....and not that one..?" What gets me is that you can have half a dozen atheists wanting evidence for God and they're totally accepting of an unevidenced infinite regression.

You strange and wonderful people!

[ProfessorDavey]

I am well aware of different temporal theories and am unphased by infinite regresses since even they need not be necessary entities. The question remains, "why this infinite regression....and not that one..?"

Nope - because the whole notion of an infinite regress is dependent on time working in a linear fashion - in other words x was created by y, y was created by z, etc etc, until you step out (with your illogical and unevidenced necessary being non-sense) but aa wasn't created by anything. Point is that if time works backwards or is completely fluid all that neat linearity of a begets b, begets c etc becomes completely meaningless.

The problem for you folk is that you are unable to get beyond time actually being as we observe it as humans. Once you get beyond this then it stops being why this infinite regress rather than that one, but why any infinite regress - and actually forget infinite regresses as they don't make sense unless you have a naive view of time.

[Enki]

Yet people find the idea of a God who reminds them they are not on the right moral path quite uncomfortable

I suggest that some people are quite willing to accept that they have made bad mistakes and find it comforting that there might be an all seeing God who will forgive them their misdemeanors.

How do you manage it?

I long ago accepted that when I die that will be the end of me. Sure, I will live on in certain people's memories for some time, but just as I have no knowledge of before I was conceived, it seems to me that I will have no knowledge of after I die. It doesn't bother me, although the manner of my going might well be a cause for concern.

England and Wales have a religious minority

Probably because the cultural norms have less of a Christian basis nowadays.

Again how do you manage ?  Also religion,  as I have said involves surrendering the ego.Would that afford you emotional security do you think?

I take comfort from trying to be honest with myself and from the love and concern of my friends and family. As to surrendering my ego. A bit difficult, don't you think if I have no belief in what I am surrendering it to. The nearest I get to that attitude would be accepting that nature takes its course.

Again, I thought all these things too until I actually looked into it.

That's entirely up to you, of course. For me, looking in to it has taken me on an entirely different path.

[Enki]

You are free to state the argument from contingency and indeed refute it here and now.

I don't refute it but it is just one possibility amongst others. This has been done to death on other threads, so I don't really see the point of going over old ground. The only thing I would say is that if one accepts that there is a necessarily existing 'thing', why on earth should we give it the name 'God' which has connotations of thinking, awareness and consciousness associated with it? Why not just call it a 'thing' rather than give it human attributes for no reason? If one insists in calling this 'thing' a god, then the nearest I would get to it would be a sort of Spinoza's god.

Can one be open to any kind of evidence when evidence means evidence? I'm not sure you can.

For me, the idea of personal evidence might well convince the person concerned but is of no particular use for me. So, evidence, for me, should be as objective as possible and, as I said before, it doesn't have to be science, although, practically, at the moment, that looks like our best bet.

In terms of methodologies, all methodologies mentioned on this forum actually have turned out to be science and that is based on physicalism which has no physical method of proving itself. Moreover science doesn't do God.

No science doesn't do God because it doesn't deal with the supernatural(if it exists). However, science has had a huge influence in relation to understanding and explaining some basic areas of Christianity, such as the origins of humanity and the make up of our universe. Of course it can't prove itself. Science isn't about proof but about gathering evidence, suggesting hypotheses, testing them, modifying them, producing theories etc. I am open to suggestions for any other methodology which is as successful at dealing with the natural world. As for the supernatural world, all this seems to be is a matter of conjecture.

[Sriram]

Why is that problematic?

No, randomness is the observation - see those random elements in reality. The logical conclusion from that randomness is the theory, and that theory stands up to continued examination.

O.

It is not problematic. It cannot be avoided. So giving that as a reason to dismiss intelligent intervention is problematic.

Randomness is not the observation. Complexity and emergent properties are the observations.  Randomness is the explanation you choose to give for that.

[Sriram]

Sriram - you regularly fall into Vlad's narrow anthropocentric thinking but now you've drifted into another of Vlad's faulty thought processes - namely considering that time runs constantly and in one direction only. The notion of a 'first' cause implies that it happens before other things - but that only makes sense if time is constant and unilinear. If time (as we think it to be) is not constant and its appearance to us as humans as running in one direction only ie merely an artefact of observation then the notion of 'first' or 'last' or 'before' or 'after' etc have no fundamental meaning.

You are just making things up as you go along! 

[ProfessorDavey]

You are just making things up as you go along!

What am I making up.

The notion that infinite regress must be a thing is the equivalent of saying that a path must either be (actually) infinite or must have a beginning and an end, without recognising that firstly that the beginning might be the end and the end might be the beginning. But more significantly simply cannot understand that the path may be circular so provides the illusion of being infinite (you never get to an end point) but actually isn't (that perception is merely an observational artefact) and there is no point which can be considered to be before or after any other point.

For a person walking along that path they might perceive that they must either come to an end (or is it the beginning) or the path must be infinite, but that is a narrow subjective observer bias. But then if you are locking into an achingly anthropocentric mindset it isn't surprising that you will see things within a narrow human-centric perspective rather than being able to step outside the massive limitations of the human experience and actually consider the universe at is actually is, rather than as humans might perceive it.

[Free Willy]

What am I making up.

The notion that infinite regress must be a thing is the equivalent of saying that a path must either be (actually) infinite or must have a beginning and an end, without recognising that firstly that the beginning might be the end and the end might be the beginning. But more significantly simply cannot understand that the path may be circular so provides the illusion of being infinite (you never get to an end point) but actually isn't (that perception is merely an observational artefact) and there is no point which can be considered to be before or after any other point.

For a person walking along that path they might perceive that they must either come to an end (or is it the beginning) or the path must be infinite, but that is a narrow subjective observer bias. But then if you are locking into an achingly anthropocentric mindset it isn't surprising that you will see things within a narrow human-centric perspective rather than being able to step outside the massive limitations of the human experience and actually consider the universe at is actually is, rather than as humans might perceive it.

What perspective then do you have in mind? If not a path as a model, what pathway do you envisage. Do tell us or remain as just spouting clichés.

[ProfessorDavey]

What perspective then do you have in mind? If not a path as a model, what pathway do you envisage. Do tell us or remain as just spouting clichés.

No onus on me Vlad as I'm not the one positing theories that are only valid on the basis of unevidenced assumptions - e.g. constant and unilinear time, the notion that there must be infinite regress (linked to the former) which can only be overcome by special pleading for a necessary entity.

All I am saying is that your assumptions aren't just unevidenced, but naive and rebutted by evidence and therefore that you must not discount the notion that time may not be constant and unilinear and therefore that the notion of unilinear, one-directional 'x caused y' etc may not hold and therefore nor does the notion of infinite regress nor necessary entities.

But if you insist, here is a completely plausible (and actually evidenced) alternative - specifically that time acts more like a multi-dimensional surface than a line. And time is, of course, intimately linked to space.

[Free Willy]

No onus on me Vlad as I'm not the one positing theories that are only valid on the basis of unevidenced assumptions - e.g. constant and unilinear time, the notion that there must be infinite regress (linked to the former) which can only be overcome by special pleading for a necessary entity.

All I am saying is that your assumptions aren't just unevidenced, but naive and rebutted by evidence and therefore that you must not discount the notion that time may not be constant and unilinear and therefore that the notion of unilinear, one-directional 'x caused y' etc may not hold and therefore nor does the notion of infinite regress nor necessary entities.

But if you insist, here is a completely plausible (and actually evidenced) alternative - specifically that time acts more like a multi-dimensional surface than a line. And time is, of course, intimately linked to space.

Fine, you have no onus to explain the things you suggest.

[ProfessorDavey]

Fine, you have no onus to explain the things you suggest.

Not if my point was that you cannot presume that something will follow a narrow set of assumptions (that you have posited), which are unevidenced. The onus is on you to justify the assumptions you make and the conclusions you propose. To say that alternatives may be possible isn't the same as nailing my colours to a particular alternative (which would place the onus on me to justify my assertions).

But that isn't what I am doing - I am saying that alternatives are possible and shouldn't be discounted because you have a narrow anthropocentic mindset.

[Free Willy]

Seems to be to be little more that a contrived way to stop a regress.

You may be mistaking the argument from contingency for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument from contingency isn't derailed by the universe being infinite or not. It
does however stop unaccounted contingency which is by far dafter than any infinity.

Don't worry Dawkins made the same error.

[Gordon]

You may be mistaking the argument from contingency for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument from contingency isn't derailed by the universe being infinite or not. It
does however stop unaccounted contingency which is by far dafter than any infinity.

Don't worry Dawkins made the same error.

I'm not - but the KCA is yet another example of begging the question, plus a wee bit of special pleading for good measure.