Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is simply a rhetorical trick to paste God onto the material universe using the illogical 'Argument from ignorance' - "we cannot imagine how this could have come about without 'something' having done it". Immediately you are into assuming a Creative entity which is what you had set out to prove in the first place. Circular argument. Illogic.
I saw that clearly Arq
and Mystic endorsed it "A ray of hope."
But since that is not a justified logical assumption, Mystic can ony resort to insults.
The whole illogical swindle, mate, is an old one - the 'Leap of faith'.
(1) Prove a sorta god - anything will do. The Universe, Dark matter, Universal constant, Quantum and say (with an angelically innocent expression) 'It's very big and wonderful - surely we can call it 'God'?
(2) That agreed (if I'm fool enough) the next step is to argue that 'God' would want to communicate with It's creation (you'll note 'His' kept in reserve for a switch when no-one's looking).
"You are assuming the reality of His/Its EXISTENCE simply by accepting reality as not a solipsist's (1) dream."
and (3) trot out the Bible which tells us about 'God'. And Mystic admits as much here.
"I am perfectly forthcoming about my BELIEFS . . . WHEN we get to that stage. We are NOT there yet for me ."
No. I have to be tricked into this God - label first. Mystic knows very well that this is a Fallacy
"The only attributes we are talking about at this stage are the ones we have established scientifically . . . and they are impressively Godly to say the least."
We already came to the conclusion that the difference is a mind that can plan ahead rather than forces that react to conditions. That's a big difference and that's why 'Creator - god' is not justified unless one can show that is what happens. Mystic cannot and never has. He assumes it as an a priori given for no other reason than he believes it.
And that's why his protestation of science, no belief involved, the 'Undeniable' and snarling at the logic that shows his trick up is so much hogwash. That's why he froths at 'natural' because it shows up the trick -equivocation - which he is pulling.
Quite apart from that, his lack of logic is shown by the fact that he had forgotton what was actually being discussed. It wasn't whether 'God' exists or not (though he couldn't help slipping into that argument) but about who was making assumptions.
I make none. He does. He thinks they are 'obvious' but I show they are far from obvious and are based on the trick of taking the material universe, and applying the God - label with the unproven assumption of a planning mind, because that is the difference and that is what he has up his sleeve. I know, because I've seen it before.
It is trick and when he is caught at it, he resorts to abuse.
If you are impressed by that, because he dresses up your Faith in impressive - looking scientific jargon, good luck to you.
(1) The solipsism nonsense is a laughably transparent red herring. This is about adding unproven attributes (Forward planning) to the universe we see, not about pretending that the universe is a figment of our imagination. Look at Mystic's trickery and attempts to fudge the issue. Look and learn.
It isn't the complicated "impressive-looking scientific jargon" that defines Mystics' Synthesis and is the foundation of it's validity...but the simplicity of it that proves it's merit to me.
There exists "something"...the empirical evidence is that matter and energy does, in fact, exist.
We also KNOW OBJECTIVELY that "something" has the ability to further create, to establish the "laws" that control that which it has created, and it even provides what is necessary to maintain and sustain that creation. These are the KNOWN ATTRIBUTES of that "something"...not "speculated", not "believed", but objective and definitive, SCIENTIFICALLY proven attributes.
The basic attributes known to define a "God"...is to be able to create, control, maintain, and sustain matter and energy, completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force.
That aforementioned "something" has all those attributes...the primary being CREATOR.
Whatever other "label" that anyone wants to assign to that "something"...be it "Nature", "The Universe", "All that Exists", "Great Spirit", "Higher Power"...it IS a CREATOR...and it IS, by it's KNOWN attributes, definitively, a GOD.
Thus a CREATOR/GOD exists...and exists as that "Something", which is "Everything". Other "assigned attributes" that have been pinned on it, that are disputable/debatable not withstanding...A CREATOR/GOD EXISTS.
The "something" that exists that IS God...isn't nothing more than a default to deal with "we cannot imagine how this could have come about without 'something' having done it".
The "something" itself did, does, and continues to objectively present with...the "definitive of God attributes" of creating, controlling, and maintaining & sustaining. The level of "forward planning" involved that we are unable to know and comprehend at this time, not withstanding....it DOES objectively demonstrate the basic attributes that is only possessed by a God---Able to create, control, maintain, and sustain matter and energy, completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force.
God is not just the entity that made the Universe and everything in it "come about"...part of "Gods Essence" IS the Universe and everything in it. You need to get hip to that.
It isn't the complicated "impressive-looking scientific jargon" that defines Mystics' Synthesis and is the foundation of it's validity...but the simplicity of it that proves it's merit to me.
There exists "something"...the empirical evidence is that matter and energy does, in fact, exist.
We also KNOW OBJECTIVELY that "something" has the ability to further create, to establish the "laws" that control that which it has created, and it even provides what is necessary to maintain and sustain that creation. These are the KNOWN ATTRIBUTES of that "something"...not "speculated", not "believed", but objective and definitive, SCIENTIFICALLY proven attributes.
The basic attributes known to define a "God"...is to be able to create, control, maintain, and sustain matter and energy, completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force.
That aforementioned "something" has all those attributes...the primary being CREATOR.
Whatever other "label" that anyone wants to assign to that "something"...be it "Nature", "The Universe", "All that Exists", "Great Spirit", "Higher Power"...it IS a CREATOR...and it IS, by it's KNOWN attributes, definitively, a GOD.
Thus a CREATOR/GOD exists...and exists as that "Something", which is "Everything". Other "assigned attributes" that have been pinned on it, that are disputable/debatable not withstanding...A CREATOR/GOD EXISTS.
The "something" that exists that IS God...isn't nothing more than a default to deal with "we cannot imagine how this could have come about without 'something' having done it".
The "something" itself did, does, and continues to objectively present with...the "definitive of God attributes" of creating, controlling, and maintaining & sustaining. The level of "forward planning" involved that we are unable to know and comprehend at this time, not withstanding....it DOES objectively demonstrate the basic attributes that is only possessed by a God---Able to create, control, maintain, and sustain matter and energy, completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force.
God is not just the entity that made the Universe and everything in it "come about"...part of "Gods Essence" IS the Universe and everything in it. You need to get hip to that.
I'm hip. In fact, as I have said to Mystic, I am not, in principle, opposed to an 'Intelligent universe'. But I am opposed - and so is logic - to assuming anything about it when we don't know, and accepting any claims without any good evidence.
I am Hip with the size, majesty, complexity, mystery and workings of the universe. What I am not Hip with is assuming that there has to be some conscious reasoning Mind behind it (Mystic assumes there is, let me assure you) and THAT is something that we do not know, we have no evidence for and Mystic, despite many long posts, has never been able to substantiate it. He has only ever been able to argue from an assumption and assertion that the universe is 'conscious' and even THAT cannot be logically stretched to forward - planning conscious.
It is that jump from the 'natural' (and I use the tem advisedly) reactions of matter according to rules (which have to work or the effects won't work) to a mind which has planned and designed and consciously intended all of this. Only when that is given a decent amount of support can one be justified in applying the Label 'God'. Until that is done, it is no more than trying to pre- empt the argument by forcing through a raft of theist ideas attached to the term 'God' while mendaciously swearing that this is not what is being done.
I can quite understand that you and Mystic think this is legitimate because you 'Know' God is real and therefore a little subterfuge is permissible. No wonder Mystic throws a fit when I catch him at it.
Although you repeatedly like to avoid it, what some of us do not agree with you about IS one of those absurd silly attributes that you claim for your god......sentience
I do not avoid it . . . It belongs in the category of BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . since it is only a POSSIBLE explanation for the universal field. It trumps your "I don't know the Source of the field . . . so I'll ignore it and not even hypothesize about it." And . . it is NOT the same as God dunnit! It is a legitimate scientific hypothesis. What's yours again?
I do not avoid it . . . It belongs in the category of BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . since it is only a POSSIBLE explanation for the universal field. It trumps your "I don't know the Source of the field . . . so I'll ignore it and not even hypothesize about it." And . . it is NOT the same as God dunnit! It is a legitimate scientific hypothesis. What's yours again?
It may only be a POSSIBLE explanation, which I would grant, but it is the one you espouse.
Now.....with that sentence ..."since it is only a POSSIBLE explanation for the universal field"...........are you admitting you also do not know and are only proposing a speculative idea?
Sounds like it to me.Which is perfectly acceptable.
My personal hypothesis , although apparently too difficult a concept for some human egos, is that there was no 'beginning', that it all just is and always will be.
I'm hip. In fact, as I have said to Mystic, I am not, in principle, opposed to an 'Intelligent universe'. But I am opposed - and so is logic - to assuming anything about it when we don't know, and accepting any claims without any good evidence.
That is the lie of science . . . that there is no assumption in the not very neutral "we don't know" so we will assume what we prefer (unintelligent intelligibility) based on NOTHING scientific that we can point to as even an interim hypothesis . . . until we do know . . . even when faced with a stronger alternative interim hypothesis than that lame non-existent one.
Quote:
I am Hip with the size, majesty, complexity, mystery and workings of the universe. What I am not Hip with is assuming that there has to be some conscious reasoning Mind behind it (Mystic assumes there is, let me assure you) and THAT is something that we do not know, we have no evidence for and Mystic, despite many long posts, has never been able to substantiate it. He has only ever been able to argue from an assumption and assertion that the universe is 'conscious' and even THAT cannot be logically stretched to forward - planning conscious.
This concern for the future arguments about BELIEFS is what is illogical. My beliefs and yours are clear . . . but they are BELIEFS . . . NOT science (even though you try to package them with science as the default without even a plausible hypothesis as to why we should . . other than our ignorance). If you had a plausible alternative to my science-based universal field/consciousness hypothesis . . . you would have produced it by now.
Quote:
It is that jump from the 'natural' (and I use the tem advisedly) reactions of matter according to rules (which have to work or the effects won't work) to a mind which has planned and designed and consciously intended all of this.
Again with the future arguments . . . the consciously planned and intended charge has already been explained to you using the analogous situation of our consciousness to our body . . . but ignored because the less plausible conscious control and intention of every little "particle event" is easier to refute.
Quote:
Only when that is given a decent amount of support can one be justified in applying the Label 'God'. Until that is done, it is no more than trying to pre- empt the argument by forcing through a raft of theist ideas attached to the term 'God' while mendaciously swearing that this is not what is being done.
You do not win debates by arguing what has not been presented because they do not apply to the logical validity of what HAS been presented.
Quote:
I can quite understand that you and Mystic think this is legitimate because you 'Know' God is real and therefore a little subterfuge is permissible. No wonder Mystic throws a fit when I catch him at it.
No subterfuge involved . . . just step-by-step logic. I haven't thrown a fit . . . but when you act like your head is positioned inappropriately . . . I find it irresistible to point it out.
The trick is to take the material universe and a thinking invisible entity...so close but not close enough ... and you try to fudge the gap by arguing that a conscious thinking and planning entity is 'obvious' and passing your unsupported supposition off as 'science'. It is not. It is not even logic and your attempt to subvert science and logic will not work on anyone who actually understands either.
You don't like that and become abusive. Also when you attempt to keep biblegod up your sleeve to produce later when you have (you hope) managed to label the material universe as 'God', and I show that I know what you're up to. You don't like that either, chum and start slagging me off for mixing beliefs and science (as though you were arguing science ) when in fact it is your god - beliefs powering your entire argument.
The explanation is there. You won't see it, Gldnrule I'm not sure, but - for the second time - your method is exposed and anyone can now see it if they want to trawl through your posts. I don't ask them to take what I say for granted - they can look for themselves.
It is purely and simply 'The Universe must have an intelligent creator'. And you huff when I say this is just watchmaker Creationism disguised in a white coat and clipboard.
Hmmmm..WHEN SOME RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BECOME DANGEROUS????......apply the same ideal to science and the atomic or nuclear Bombs they have made in abundance....Just have to push a button....and all hell breaks loose!...Thanks to science eh...
And let us not forget the Auto and airoplanes, trains and other pollution devices devised to kill the planet and turn it into a biohazrdious estate, with your support of course...
And you fear religion??
But it will be a man with the delusion of some god telling him to push that button. Doesn't matter if it's pushing a button or throwing a rock, the causation is the delusion of defending a god.
The trick is to take the material universe and a thinking invisible entity...so close but not close enough ... and you try to fudge the gap by arguing that a conscious thinking and planning entity is 'obvious' and passing your unsupported supposition off as 'science'. It is not. It is not even logic and your attempt to subvert science and logic will not work on anyone who actually understands either.
I am not fudging the gap . . . I am asserting that the scientifically discernible and validated attributes of the universe are sufficiently Godly to qualify as God (without ANY additional attributes as BELIEVED by others).
Quote:
You don't like that and become abusive. Also when you attempt to keep biblegod up your sleeve to produce later when you have (you hope) managed to label the material universe as 'God', and I show that I know what you're up to. You don't like that either, chum and start slagging me off for mixing beliefs and science (as though you were arguing science ) when in fact it is your god - beliefs powering your entire argument.
The explanation is there. You won't see it, Gldnrule I'm not sure, but - for the second time - your method is exposed and anyone can now see it if they want to trawl through your posts. I don't ask them to take what I say for granted - they can look for themselves.
I am hardly abusive . . . perhaps a little good-natured ribbing at the obtuseness of your view (from your head's current location.) I am merely taking pains to point out the future-oriented nature of your objections to highlight the true nature of them. It is NOT pure logic that drives your view (that has been amply demonstrated) . . . It is a defensiveness and protectionism FROM God and any of those damn God believers with their troublesome, meddlesome and downright dangerous BELIEFS ABOUT God that you are protecting against with your false flag "logic."
Pot/kettle . . .
You have amply demonstrated what I have maintained all along . . . the so-called scientific "neutrality" is a myth founded on a preference for protection from those damn religionists!
Quote:
It is purely and simply 'The Universe must have an intelligent creator'. And you huff when I say this is just watchmaker Creationism disguised in a white coat and clipboard.
Creationism and the Discovery Institute ID are proven frauds . . . trying to tar my scientific hypothesis of the universal field/consciousness explanation with the frauds in ID/Creationism is dirty pool.
"I am asserting that the scientifically discernible and validated attributes of the universe are sufficiently Godly to qualify as God "
Must be my memory is acting at it's worst again because I can't remember you answering this before.
What are those attributes,again, that you deem sufficient to qualify as a God...or more to the point, what attributes do you think a god must have?
Indulge me....or maybe just a quick rehash for the benefit of the newcomers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) when in fact it is your god - beliefs powering your entire argument. 
