rainbow walking

Since we've pretty much ascertained that approaching the prospect of an existent godlike being cannot be done so from a completely unbiased set of presuppositions then it would seem our next logical recourse would be to approach it from the opposite polemic. That is, to take the side of our opponent and argue the case from his position to the best of our ability. Which, consequently, what I did with PoE to some degree and was able to devise an argument almost completely devoid of the usual religious baggage often associated with a theodicy of that nature.

I see no reason this can't be incorporated to argue the merits of an existent godlike being. Back when I was beginning to extricate myself from the tentacles of the church...maybe six or so months before my final deconversion, I developed a god concept that is completely philosophical and epistemically oriented towards a synthesis of science and philosophy. It may be just the vehicle we need to get this discussion focused on the main event. Keep in mind this is not an xian god concept.

So here it is fellow atheists, take no prisoners.

Let us see if we can “deduce”, from what we know to exist, enough information to conclude a god concept that is both reasonable and sustainable.

First we start with invisibility.” How”, you may ask, “can we “envision” a concept that is invisible?” How do you envision the concept of GRAVITY? By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that our universe is governed by forces we call LAWS which are “invisible”. What IS visible are their effects. The cause is not. This leaves us with an observable universe under the direct control of invisible forces. The recent discovery of “quarks”; sub-atomic particles that blink into existence and vanish again without rhyme or reason, further support this factor, as evidence that there are dimensions of this universe which we have yet to un-veil.



The second factor of a god concept is “dynamism”. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that the universe is in constant motion from the sub-atomic to the macros of the galaxies not one particle is absolutely still. A god concept must necessarily represent the dunamis underlying this property of the universe. The amount and type of “power” required for “dynamism” is only that which is necessary to get things started, including the “laws” which ensure that everything moves in rhythm. Once the system begins the forces/laws kick in and it becomes virtually a perpetual motion machine.


A third factor necessary to a god concept is “bio-logical”. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that “LIFE” is uniquely contradistinctive from all other aspects of the universe. Not only must a god concept encompass invisible power but “invisible LIVING power” in order for there to be a “BIO” logic connection. Since we know ourselves to be biological creatures we cannot justify or sustain an in-animate god concept being responsible for our animated biology.

A fourth factor necessary to a god concept is superior intelligence. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that bio-logic functions progress from the simple to the complex; that the more complex the function, the more information is required to be stored and processed to sustain the complexity; that the more information involved the more intelligence required; that all molecular structures contain data; that the non-molecular energetic forces of the universe “convey” data; that the entire biological apparatus has been synchronized into a “food chain” whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts by virtue of the data contained therein. A god concept would necessarily encompass an “intelligence” superior to any singular functional species within the “food chain”, by virtue of the incredible amount of data contained within and conveyed throughout the system. Data that appears meaningless until interpreted by the bio-logic functioning of scientific enquiry, a function of “intelligence” developed by humans as a means of collecting, assimilating, organizing and applying said data to the “purpose” of sustaining and elevating their position within the food chain. The superior intelligence factor is a necessity of the god concept by virtue of the FACT that the “organization” and “activation” of such a HUGE amount of data into what is collectively recognized as the “UNIVERSE” is a function that EXCEEDS the intellectual capacity of any species within said universe actively involved in the “food chain”.

A fifth factor necessary to a god concept is “macro-logical. By observation “WE” have discovered THAT we are, WHAT we are, and WHO we are. By conceptual “agreement” we have established WHERE we are and WHEN we are. During the process of reaching this point we discovered that certain data collected could be assimilated into the body of data already interpreted creating a “progressiveness” that “evolved” into a “systematic” approach being facilitated by the tools of ‘logic” and further developed into “scientific enquiry”. Via “scientific enquiry” we discovered a consistency inherent in the data collected and began to develop “theories” based on this “consistency” The more consistent data being categorized as “laws”, while data under investigation as hypothesis. One such “law” which “reveals” the “macro-logical factor of the god concept is the law of “CAUSATION.” Causation interpreted says that “something” CAUSES all data in the universe to be “consistent” because the “EFFECT” of that consistency is readily “observable”. Macro-logic incorporates the interpretation of data into a cosmic “search” for the original “cause”. Due to the “invisibility” factor of the god concept the search continues. The macro-logical factor is a necessity of the god concept in order to fulfill the “law of causation” which will provide us with an answer to the “WHY” we are.

The final factor necessary to a god concept is psycho-logical. This factor incorporates several “invisible” characteristics of the “bio-logical”. Consciousness, rationality, emotionality, will and reason. The effects are readily observable; the cause remains elusive. The psycho-logical “profile” of the bio-logical reveals a “determinism”. One characteristic determines the function of another thus “dictating” the EFFECT. The manifestation of the “dominant” characteristic will be “determined” by the INPUT and COMPUTATION of data. The “default” dominant characteristic is the “will”. The “will” is determined by data computed into REASONS which are either “rational” or “emotional.” Reason is the computational faculty of assimilating data from external and internal(memory)sources into conclusions that can be logical, illogical, or an admixture of both. Consciousness is the characteristic that correlates all the other factors into a sense of “self” which is developed into an “identity” peculiar to each bio-logical entity. The psycho-logical factor is a necessity of the god concept as it ascribes a “PURPOSE” to all data and an “IDENTITY” derived from said purpose.

In conclusion we can see that the factors incorporated into this god concept are both reasonable and sustainable. Dynamic power, intelligence and three variations of logic are all scientifically substantiated concepts. The “invisibility” factor should not be an objectionable inclusion since we know there are many aspects of our universe which are invisible, such as the wind, but which we can readily observe the effects.

Alix Nenuphar

RW:

Based on your sequence of threads, I rather suspected this might be where you were going.

However...
I fail to see why this is the opposite of arguing from a biased set of presuppositions. What is the opposite 'controversial argument' to a 'completely unbiased set of presuppositions'? In fact, your use of the word presuppositions makes the sentence an oxymoron, yes?

Actually, I don't think you succeeded. Your terminology was unusual, but your arguments regarding the PoE appear to be the standard theological defenses: that good requires evil for definition and that evil enables the realisation of a greater good.

What do you mean by 'incorporated'? You appear to wish to argue the existence of a God using non-religious terminology and concepts. There is nothing particularly new about this idea; I believe it is called 'Natural Religion.'

I will keep this in mind.

I am not necessarily an atheist. I hope that does not bias my reply.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology

I am not sure what the point of this is: the word invisible would appear to relate to material things. Since concepts are not material, the word does not apply.

But the laws of the universe do not 'cause' these effects, they are simply 'descriptions' of causal relationships. The causes are material.

May I suggest a little checking into quantum mechanics before using such analogies? Quark's don't actually 'blink into existence and vanish again without rhyme or reason.' Quarks are building block particles.

This is not clear. What is a 'virtual perpetual motion machine'? Either it's perpetual or it's not, yes? In addition (to your analogy) why do the 'laws of the universe' remain in effect? Does this not require 'energy'?

Why? Life is a manifestation of the laws of physics. What about life do you believe makes it distinct?

You have not defined inanimate in this context.

You might wish to rephrase this; it is very obscure.

Why? I can use a simple algorithm to generate a highly complex fractal. The complexity of the fractal is greater than that of the formula. Why does your 'God' have to be more intelligent that it's creation?

But so far you have not established that your 'God' needs to understand or comprehend the universe. This is an unsupported assertion, which does not appear to be derivable from your 'presuppositions'.

You might find that adopting more usual terminology would help the clarity of your argument. What is 'macro-logical'?

Established or simply defined? We arbitrarily assign coordinates to our location in the cosmos and the time-frame of the universe. Or did you mean something else?

In short, we continue to learn things as times goes on. Acceptable.

Correction: we have observed causality in most places we have looked. In certain places (virtual particles, for example) causality does not appear to apply.

I am not sure anyone else would understand this interpretation. Causality is simply a defined dependency between two events in space-time. It has nothing to do with causing all data in the universe to be consistent. In addition, you appear to be saying that 'something' causes the universe to be consistent, because we can observe consistency. What does our observation have to do with this? Surely the effect you are looking for would happen whether we observed it or not?

This would appear to be simply another statement of the Cosmological Argument. It is discussed on many places on the web. Admittedly, the Cosmological Argument can be phrased in non-theological terms, but it is not a new argument.

I presume you are not ascribing these characteristics to all biological entities? Does a virus have a 'will'? Does a bacterium have 'consciousness'?

Actually, we are making good progress in explicating the basis of consciousness, emotion, etc.

By which you mean what, precisely?

Again, explication would be helpful.

Why?

You are asserting that reason can produce illogical conclusions? In which case, it is surely not 'reason', yes?

Could you perhaps rephrase that?

I applaud your foray into Natural Theology, but if I might make a few suggestions....

1) Do some research on the history of Natural Theology - it is an old study and there is some good material you might be able to reuse.

2) Use more common terminology; your phrasing is often complicated by unusual words (Macro-Logic).

3) You need to support more of your buried assertions ('Will' is the dominant characteristic).

4) Show your deductive chains; your document so far contains a great many assertions, but little supporting causal chains from your assumptions.

5) Make your assumptions clearer.

Good luck.

Koyaanisqatsi

I concur with Alix on this, rainbow.

It appears you're trying to simply conflate disparate, contextual meanings of scientific and logical terminology in an unclear fashion, forcing them to relate symbolically to notions of a god concept.

Even if there were such a "dynamic power" in the universe, why does that necessarily mean "god" (or like being) and not say, "natural law?"

You can define the electromagnetic force as "god," but what would be the point, beyond a meaningless, arbitrary label?

The letters "g" "o" and "d" placed side-by-side would therefore have no relevant, implicit meaning. You might as well define electromagnetism as "Trflipposdlk" for all the salience it would impart.