Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Lion IRC]

There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.

Yesterday I created a pile of dirt.
Therefore should I conclude that it's impossible for a pile of dirt to arise without the actions of a conscious entity?

No. There's no necessary logical inference to conclude that.

I also created a hole in the ground.

Should I likewise conclude that holes in the ground require the actions of a conscious entity? The lunar craters are all from a deity playing spitball?

No. There's no necessary logical inference to conclude that.

 

[Elixir]

There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.

Yesterday I created a pile of dirt.
Therefore should I conclude that it's impossible for a pile of dirt to arise without the actions of a conscious entity?

No. There's no necessary logical inference to conclude that.

Then why do you conclude that a conscious entity "must have created" ANYTHING?
There is no necessary logical reason to conclude that.
Please list the requisite qualities that a "creation" must have, to necessarily infer a conscious entity - if anything qualifies.

God has the ability to prevent all deaths.

But chooses not to.

Game. Set. Match.

You'd think, right? But Noooo... somehow the omniscient omnipotent god talked itself into creating people whom it KNEW would walk into the apple trap it set up (for the apparent purpose of blaming and punishing its creations for their decision to eat bad apples), and dealt them death as a reward.
Being a god is a nasty, bloody business. But only because it wanted it that way, of course.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.

Yesterday I created a pile of dirt.
Therefore should I conclude that it's impossible for a pile of dirt to arise without the actions of a conscious entity?

No. There's no necessary logical inference to conclude that.

Then why do you conclude that a conscious entity "must have created" ANYTHING?

You dont have to conclude that.

I don't assert that God must be the only creator/causal agent.

Have you been tracking this thread at all?
I'm applauding the human experiments which deliberately cause something.

Please list the requisite qualities that a "creation" must have, to necessarily infer a conscious entity - if anything qualifies.

Why?

The ALTERNATIVE to creation is an uncaused, unintended, spontaneous event , which doesnt need a creator or a past-eternal thing which likewise doesnt need a creator.

I don't have to outline the "requisite qualities" of the entity other than that entity being the ALTERNATIVE to uncaused, unintended, spontaneous events.

My entity isn't competing with the idea that there are other creators. He is competing with the idea that there is no need for a creator because...

- things magically, spontaneously, unpredictably cause themselves
- things have always existed for a past-eternity

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My entity isn't competing with the idea that there are other creators. He is competing with the idea that there is no need for a creator because...

- things magically, spontaneously, unpredictably cause themselves
- things have always existed for a past-eternity

This thread isn't about eternity.

 

[pood]

Now, is God responsible for brain cancer that kills young, innocent children? If not, why not?

Didn't we already have the "scientific causes of cancer" discussion?

No, we did not have that discussion. We had you moving goal posts and evading the question in a slippery, sliding, utterly disingenuous way.

You claimed that you would accept God as the cause of brain cancer in children if science said it was. But you already know perfectly well that science will never say that, because God never shows up in any data. We’ve had THAT discussion — or, rather, we have had to reiterate that to you repeatedly.

Science does not find God in any data. But you — who claim you “defer” to science — believe in the Christian God. Since you say to “defer” to science, will you now “defer” to science finding no God?

Will you “defer” to science finding no evidence that God causes good things, as well?

You can only legitimately claim that science absolves God of being the cause of bad things IF science already found that God exists, but cannot connect him to any bad stuff. So this bullshit you’re offering up here does not pass the smell test, because you know that science has NOT found that God exists. You are clearly prevaricating.

 

[Elixir]

Now, is God responsible for brain cancer that kills young, innocent children? If not, why not?

Didn't we already have the "scientific causes of cancer" discussion?

No, we did not have that discussion. We had you moving goal posts and evading the question in a slippery, sliding, utterly disingenuous way.

You claimed that you would accept God as the cause of brain cancer in children if science said it was. But you already know perfectly well that science will never say that, because God never shows up in any data. We’ve had THAT discussion — or, rather, we have had to reiterate that to you repeatedly.

Science does not find God in any data. But you — who claim you “defer” to science — believe in the Christian God. Since you say to “defer” to science, will you now “defer” to science finding no God?

Will you “defer” to science finding no evidence that God causes good things, as well?

You can only legitimately claim that science absolves God of being the cause of bad things IF science already found that God exists, but cannot connect him to any bad stuff. So this bullshit you’re offering up here does not pass the smell test, because you know that science has NOT found that God exists. You are clearly prevaricating.

That’s well said and accurate. Lion IRC should thank you, and apologize for the disingenuousness.
Then he can agree that his stance is irrational, and let us know intends to stick to it even if he can’t explain it. Then we can move on, if it leaves anything to discuss.

Sadly, I expect the response, if any, will be more like “science doesn’t know everything and doesn’t say god doesn’t exist and blah blah blah” - which would be utterly unresponsive to your point.

Go ahead Lion, brighten my day.

 

[Lion IRC]

My entity isn't competing with the idea that there are other creators. He is competing with the idea that there is no need for a creator because...

- things magically, spontaneously, unpredictably cause themselves
- things have always existed for a past-eternity

This thread isn't about eternity.

If you're talking about time + chance why can't we talk about a past-eternal universe?

 

[Elixir]

]If you're talking about time + chance

We’re not talking about time + chance. We’re talking about energy plus time + matter. In various combinations it can work miracles! Did you see the eclipse?

 

[bilby]

no need for a creator because...

- things magically, spontaneously, unpredictably cause themselves
- things have always existed for a past-eternity

Exactly.

Your creator can only exist if either...
- creators magically, spontaneously, unpredictably cause themselves
- crestors have always existed for a past-eternity

So they are completely useless as an explanation for "things", because they do nothing whatsoever to address these two "problems" regarding the existence of things, and the "out" of declaring the creator "not a thing" is exactly synonymous with declaring the creator to be nothing - ie nonexistent.

Kicking the can down the road is pointless, and only a complete moron would find such a pointless exercise satisfying, and declare it sufficient to answer the question "Why does anything exist?".

What created the creator? If nothing did, then the only way to exempt the creator from the same pair of problems is to accept a contradiction in your logic - at which point, literally everything, true or false, can be proven; and nothing can be known or reasoned about at all.

Or you can include the creator as yet another thing requiring an explanation, and see that it's just as effective, and more parsimonious, to imagine "spontaneous or eternal mass/energy", as it is to imagine "spontaneous or eternal creator of mass/energy".

Particularly as we observe mass/energy, but have not one single reliable observation of any creator.

 

[Learner]

Christians born in the modern world would describe in today's language and pov that the universe is operating on systematic mechanical means. We include 'natural' being the systematic process - running on automation e.g. God creates a sophisticated clock, winds it up then it runs by itself.

So, you are saying that Christians born in the modern world will be at least a century out of date in their understanding of physics?

I'm saying Christians in the modern world don't share the same view of the theology as atheists, like what was exampled: "God and angels are puppeteers...the moon is hanging on strings..." etc., which funny enough is an out of date, hundred years plus conceptual (mis)understanding - unless it's a telling of a fairy tale story you're reading to your kids.

I mean, I don't really disagree in general, most people (whether Christian or not) are woefully uneducated and have no grasp of the revolution in physics that occurred in the twentieth century; But there are a number of modern physicists who are also Christians, and I am sure that they would consider your position here to be highly insulting.

The modern Christian physicists would more likely be insulted if they're hearing what I mention above.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Let me rephrase.
God has to exist in order to be the cause of something

It's the existence of the idea of an all-good God that made/oversees a universe with suffering in it that creates the problem of evil. That problem applies to the idea.

The PoE is a logical consequence of the idea of an all-good God. The idea exists, so the problem with the idea exists. No effort to "get" atheists can make it go away, that's nothing but deflection.

Empirical evidence - science - would still point to smoking being a/the cause of lung cancer notwithstanding God's existence.

God can exist and NOT be the cause of a person smoking a pack a day.

You don't even understand simple statistics. Add it to the list, I guess.

My baby brother died from throat cancer. Yes, he smoked. Also Fuck you very much.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I always defer to science.

No you don't.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Now, is God responsible for brain cancer that kills young, innocent children? If not, why not? If so, how can such a God be morally perfect? It would be monstrous to let a kid die of brain cancer if you have the means to prevent it, as God does, according to you, since God, according to you, is omnipotent.

I notice, despite their otherwise prolific blathering in this thread, that this question continues to be dodged in this thread, while they focus on 'smoking', which doesn't cause cancer per se, but simply increases the odds of getting cancer.

 

[Lion IRC]

Did you see the eclipse?

View attachment 45837

 

[Swammerdami]

God has the ability to prevent all deaths.

But chooses not to.

Game. Set. Match.

Both Leibniz and Tegmark -- though approaching the issue from completely opposite starting points and reaching opposite conclusions -- recognize a possible constraint that you overlook.

The Christian Leibniz did not claim God had created the best universe, just the best POSSIBLE universe. Tegmark reaches no firm conclusion but notes:

A first concern about the CUH is that it may sound like a surrender of the philosophical high ground, effectively conceding that although all possible mathematical structures are “out there”, some have privileged status. However, my guess is that if the CUH turns out to be correct, if will instead be because the rest of the mathematical landscape was a mere illusion, fundamentally undefined and simply not existing in any meaningful sense.

 

[Elixir]

Did you see the eclipse?

View attachment 45837

OMFG that’s so lame.
There was better Xtian music in the 70s.

You forgot to apologize and address the point. But it IS a very extravagant version of “LALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!”

 

[Elixir]

I notice, despite their otherwise prolific blathering in this thread, that this question continues to be dodged

Yeah, all of Lion’s and to a lesser extent Learner’s bloviations, appear to be adolescent attempts to test the effectiveness of their prevarications, deceits and other dishonest discussion tactics, to float their superstitions.
I can only surmise that this embarrassing performance meets with their own satisfaction, since they keep doing it.
Flaunting the invincibility of their ignorance is a time-honored creo pastime.

 

[pood]

Did you see the eclipse?

View attachment 45837

Would you care to address all the outstanding questions you have dodged?

 

[Lion IRC]

You fanged the quote function.
I never asked anyone if they saw the eclipse.

 

[pood]

You fanged the quote function.
I never asked anyone if they saw the eclipse.

If the video’s not yours, attributing it to you was inadvertent. How about getting back on track and dealing with all the questions you have dodged?