Refractor

Well, since the universe is everything that is natural, your proposed "xyzzy plugh" would have to have been *supernatural*, because if it was natural, then it would itself have been part of the natural universe, which, of course, would lead to the nonsensical paradox that the xyzzy plugh caused itself. So your "xyzzy plugh" is just a non-descript version of a supernatural cause. Our claims would be similar only in the fact that they both regard a supernatural cause. Whatever cleverly-devised label you choose to rhetorically ascribe to the supernatural cause is irrelevant. You could call it the "Pee Wee Seaweed Jimalous xZZ of 3/45~+1 of Sarndoniac" for all I care. The label of a package is irrelevant to the content of the package.

I don't claim to "know" what caused the universe either. I am an agnostic theist. I "believe" an intelligent designer god created the universe because I see abundant evidence of intelligent design in the universe and in all life forms. The idea that there is an intelligent designer is a logical induction, not a "knowledge claim". "Belief" does not have to be dictated by knowledge in order to be logical, viable, or accurate. In fact, anyone who proposes that belief must be dictated exclusively by knowledge is a liar. We all believe things without knowledge every single day. Every time you sit on a chair, you believe it will support you before you actually "know" it will support you. Past evidences do not dictate future events. Even if the chair supported you 1 billion times previously, that does not automatically guarantee that it will support you on the 1 billionth-and-oneth time you sit on it.

Additionally, we don't "know" we will be alive tomorrow, but we "believe" it nontheless. I don't "know" that my wife is truly at the store right now getting groceries, but I believe it nonetheless.....and when she comes home with those bags of groceries, my belief will be vindicated once more.

In summary, my point is that we all believe things despite our lack of direct "knowledge" every single day of our lives.....therefore, it would be erroneous to say that belief must be *exclusively* predicated on "knowledge" in order for that belief to be logical, viable, or accurate.

Our knowledge is extremely important, however, because based on our observations of data, we can make statistical predictions and formulate probabilities. As a general rule of logic, a belief that is supported by the highest probablity is the most logical one. I am a theist because I see the concept of a supernatural intelligent designer to be being more probable than the concept of a self-caused (or uncaused) universe popping into existence by nothing, for nothing, and out of nothing.


Refractor

Refractor

Yes, you should keep going because you have yet to explain how anything you just listed constitutes SELF-contradicting properties.

Do you even know what self-contradicting properties are?


Refractor

Refractor

It utterly fails to accomplish that goal because IPU is a self-contradicting concept. There can be no such thing as an animal that is invisible, nor can something possess the color "pink" and be invisible. Colors only exist on visible, physical things that are exposed to light.

I have no idea why you think IPU can get that far considering it is a self-contradicting concept. Self-contradicting concepts have no argumentative value whatsoever.

In my view, the basic concept of god is the RESULT of logic and does not need to transcend it.

Furthermore, your own argument backfires on you since you believe "nobody X nothing = complex universes" is probable, even though such an idea violates all logic. So it seems that you mind if theistic theories violate logic; but if naturalistic theories violate logic, you'll let them off the hook. Your argument represents a good example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Refractor

Jobar

Refractor, you may safely assume that anyone here with more than a couple of hundred posts under their belt will know a very great deal about both philosophy and physics. I have a BS in Applied physics from Ga. Tech, and a minor in philosophy; we have a number of full professors and working scientists who post here regularly. And lots of just plain smart people.

Also, you will find that bad manners and constant snide remarks will receive short shrift. You may denigrate ideas, but if you insult the people presenting those ideas, you will find anvils dropping upon you from a height. Good manners work better, too; it's hard to convince someone of something if you first piss them off.

All right, I take off my moderator hat, and get on to the meat of one of your previous posts-
I define god as an intelligent, mindful, supernatural being that was the designing cause of the natural universe and of all life on earth.

OK, short and sweet, though not complete, I think. Are you a deist? Do you believe that God directly intercedes in his creation? Do you derive any moral or ethical principles from your idea of God?

As to self-contradictory- 'supernatural being' is that. A 'being' is by definition a real thing, an *entity*- and 'supernatural' is a meaningless and undefineable term. It's like saying something is both invisible and also pink, in fact.

And as to designing the universe and life- you only offer a bare assertion here. Want to back it up? (If you want to argue creationism, or intelligent design, please do so in our Evolution/Creationism forum.)

Psycho Economist

Yes. An invisible pink unicorn is self-contradictory. That's the point. So is a disembodied being that created the universe. IPU is not meant to be an argument; it's an analogy. You can rightly see that invisibility and pink can't co-exist. So how can your god exist before existance? Without saying the rules of logic don't apply to him?

Similarly, I'm not suggesting that the universe came from nothing. It came from something... sure.

Something happened fifteen billion years ago that made an infinite sea of boiling quarks to lose its density, cool down and eventually form atoms. Because of the nature of our physics, we can't tell what was there before the big bang. But it's a leap of logic to say subatomic particles cooling down and coalescing into atoms necessarily implies an omnipotent, disembodied consciousness that rules the universe and tends to Earth like a gardner.

One must exist before what one creates.
The universe (in the non-astronomical sense) includes of all things that exist.

Supernatural things do not occur in nature.
Things that exist in fact exist in nature.

Consciousness is an emergent property of chemical and electrical interactions.
Electrical and chemical reactions require matter in which to take place.
Disembodied things do not consist of matter.

An opinion is a subjective interpretation of facts.
Subjective interpretations are non-factual.

Psycho Economist

Religious thinking, superstitious thinking more generally takes advantage of adaptations that are beneficial to primates in the wild who lack the biological capacity to undertake systematic investigation of their surroundings. Heuristic thought enables them to size up things quickly, catch prey, avoid predators, not make the same dangerous mistakes over and over again.

On the other hand, now that we have the biological and cultural capacity to investigate the surroundings / world / universe systematically, we've discovered our individual representations of our immediate worlds are gross estimations. Estimations that work for us, keep us safe, do all the things an adaptation would need to do to make its carriers more likely to pass the adaptation along. But they don't tend to accurately reflect reality.

Our brains naturally tend to see hits, we don't see misses unless we take the time to count, and ususally we don't have the time. Ususally it doesn't even occur to us to count the misses at all.

That's the genesis of superstition. We do something, and coincidentally something unrelated and good happens. It's called operant conditioning: training an organism to complete a task to obtain a positive reward. Do you know what the best strategy to re-enforce a behavior is? Reward it rarely, after a random number of completions of the task.

A monkey will press a button for a hit of dilute cocaine (hey, we didn't always have animal subject ethics!) a hundred thousand times more often if he doesn't know when he'll get it than if he learns he'll get the hit after every, say, five-hundred presses. Even we tailless primates get blinded by coincidence as thoroughly. And that's where lucky socks, and hitting streaks, and animal sacrifice, and even prayer come from. You count the hits, ignore the misses, and think you're on to something.

Science is hard. Math is hard. It doesn't help that every one of us has to catch-up on 4,000 years worth of discoveries for it to be meaningful. You don't need 'em to survive in the wild, so our brains aren't good at thinking in those ways. But that's the way to move from our feeling about with heuristic gross aproximations into seeing the real picture with accuracy and reliability.

Refractor

I'll take your word for it.

Understood. Now, what prompted this? Did I say anything to anyone thusfar that was not directly related to their argument? I don't believe that ad hominems have any pragmatic value whatsoever and I try very hard to never to commit them myself. However, I must say I find Diana's comments on page 3 of this thread to be somewhat troubling, in that she basically says it's okay to insult people as long as it's cleverly done and she finds it entertaining.

I believe it is quite likely that God would have interceded in the developement of the universe at different points in the past. I base this on the fact that virtually all intelligent designers we have ever observed intercede/interact with the things they design.

Here is where we part company. A "being" does not have to be physical. Physicality is not included in it's definition. Secondly, whether or not god or an extra-natural/supernatural existence is a "real thing" is precisely the point in question. You assume god is not a real thing; which is merely your philosophical assumption. So it is merely your philosophical assumption that contradicts the term "supernatural being"; but the concept itself is not self-contradictory definitionally, or ontologically.

On the other hand, to say something is both pink and invisible is *inherently* self-contradictory.....so there is no comparison because its not merely my philosophical assumption that only physical things derive color when they are exposed to light. That is a scientific FACT based on how physics operate.

Regarding unobserved origin events of 15 billion years go - all we have is bare assertions. We have no direct knowledge, no direct evidence, no direct observers, no direct data, or proof. The origin of the universe is unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable. Therefore, all we are left with is bare assertions about what we "think" may have happened. I base my assertion of an Intelligent Designer on the evidence of intelligent design that is found in the universe. To say design = designer is a logical induction that is well-supported by statistical probability.


Refractor

Lobstrosity

The problem is that we also have seen zero evidence of mindful supernatural processes causing complex universes to pop into existence out of nothing. What this does is deter atheists from believing whole-heartedly in the necessity for such processes. It does not mean that we claim to know for certain that no intelligence was behind ultimate creation, it means we see no reason to assume such a thing at this time. It means that creation for the atheist is a big question mark yet to be answered. Is there something wrong with admitting to not know something rather than making up some arbitrary detailed solution to fill the knowledge gap?

Your statement here is highly inaccurate. The accurate form would be that we have seen copious evidence that all processes in this universe are mindless and natural. They exhibit symmetries over time and space and can be logically represented in the form of consistent equations. In the past, humans have demostrated a proclivity for calling upon supernatural forces to explain that which they found to be mysterious and complex. "Gods" were used to explain why it rained, for example. If we have learned anything from history, it's to avoid appealing to supernatural forces just because something seems complicated. Things once called supernatural now have natural explanations. To me this indicates that we should at least first attempt to objectively explain any process as the cumulative effect of natural processes. By definition, science cannot touch the supernatural. If our universe does have supernatural origins, science cannot address it and will come up with no answers. Therefore, why not simply give science a chance to see what it can find. Due to the extreme order and consistency of the natural laws of our universe, I see no reason to simpy assume that this mindless order will not extend through creation. You're making a big assumption when you say that intelligence was required for the formation of our universe...how can you know one way or the other? At any rate, my view is that we'll let science have a look at it and see what shakes loose.

In short, while the evidence indicates that no active supernatural intelligence is interacting currently with this universe, I make no claims as to what spawned ultimate creation. Since I make no claims, I will just look for answers and the only ones I can objectively search for are naturalistic ones. I could say that God created the universe, but then I'm left wondering where a powerful, intelligent being came from. Why was such a thing just always there? And if it wasn't always there, what created it? Basically, I get nowhere by assuming an intelligent God--I just add complexity to an already complex picture, so why do that without some sort of evidence first?

I'm a reasonable man. If evidence points strongly to a conclusion, I will tentatively accept that conclusion, though all the while I will hold it up to scrutiny against new evidence to make sure it is still valid. That's what a good scientist does. A good scientist must always be a skeptic, for he must understand that we never know with absolute certainty that any theory is truly correct. Quantum mechanics is some of the weirdest, most counterintuitive shit you've ever seen. I believe in it's validity, however, because empirical data support it. I'm not hell-bent on denying the existence of anything strange. I guess let me ask you this: what sort of evidence would you need to convince you that leprechauns exist? What would it take to get you to believe in Vishnu? How could I prove to you that Zeus is real? Your answers to these questions would most likely be my answer to yours. You clearly have a reason for not believing in Vishnu (assuming you're not Hindu). You must think that there's a lack of evidence for Vishnu, right, as opposed to the notion that you're a die-hard skeptic dead-set against ever believing in Vishnu? Well for me that same lack of evidence exists with respect to all the gods of man-made religions. Please, by all means feel free to tell me what evidence exists for your god that does not exist for Vishnu/Allah/Zeus/Odin/Santa.

Refractor

"Disembodied"? That means to divest of bodily existence. When did I ever claim that god once had a body, and then dispossessed it? I think you are inadvertently shadow-boxing a position I never claimed.


You would have an excellent point here if I had defined god as a "physical" being. It would be illogical to claim that a physical being existed before *physical* existence. However, I neved defined god as a physical being.

So your above argument made two errors:

1) It presumptiously concludes that physical existence is the only kind of existence there is.

2) It overlooked the fact that I never defined god as a physical being. There is no contradiction in claiming that a *non-physical* being existed before *physical* existence.

Any claims you make about "infinite seas of boiling quarks" are 100% postulation, nothing more. There is no empirical evidence that proves any such thing actually existed 15 billion years ago, or had anything to do with the origin of the universe.

Furthermore, if subatomic partlces are eternal and never had an origin, we would find them in a state of immutable equibrium which, we do not. So we can rightly conclude that they too are not eternal but had an origin, just like atoms.

The universe only includes the existence of all PHYSICAL things.

Now you are just posturing philosophical assumptions. Nature itself very well may be the RESULT of a supernatural cause.


Yes, PHYSICAL consciousness has those properties, but I have never defined god as being a physical being or having a *physical* consciousness. So your argument on this point is empty and non-applicable to my position.

I assume that there can be a consciousness apart from nature, just like you assume that "infinite seas of boiling quarks" can somehow explode complex, ordered universes into existence.


Refractor

Lobstrosity

Just out of curiosity, is it a fair, logical argument for me to make if I say the following:

This universe obviously shows intelligent design and hence it is very likely that an intelligent, supernatural being created it.

However, an intelligent being capable of creating such a universe is clearly evidence of intelligent design. Therefore, it is very likely that an intelligent, supersupernatural being created it. As such I worship Supergod the really really almighty.

Where's the flaw?