Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

[punshhh]

"The essential concept is intellectually derived" from what?

Hi Tassman,
I have been down your neck of the woods recently, had a great time.

Intellectually derived from observations of nature. Another example would be the ideas developed by Newton on being (allegedly) hit on the head by an apple.

 

[punshhh]

What's the difference between "an object of thought , entirely constructed in the mind" and something whose "essential concept is intellectually derived"?

The first is and is known to be a object of fancy. The second is and is intended to be a representation of some object which may exist in the external world.

 

[tsig]

Hi Tassman,
I have been down your neck of the woods recently, had a great time.

Intellectually derived from observations of nature. Another example would be the ideas developed by Newton on being (allegedly) hit on the head by an apple.

You look at nature and see god?

ETA: Please not the "laws need a lawmaker"again.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You look at nature and see god?

No, he recently made an analogy to a "puppetmaster", "holding the whole thing together".

Which really sounds more like God as glue. That keeps things from flying apart.

Like gravity. Or the strong or weak nuclear forces.

Or something.

Because puppetmasters manupulate in easily discernible ways. Unless the "strings" are purely philosophical (read: imaginary).

Or something.

When analogies get this labored, they become useless.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Numerous ways, for example, holding the whole thing together like a puppet master.

Supported by nothing more than your assumption that there must, in fact, be a "puppet master".

Special Pleading lets you get to any conclusion you have already assumed.

As in my answer to your previous point, gods do not have to be relatable to human experience, only responsible for their existence, all else is a response composed by humanity, as a response to such a realisation.

Again, supported by nothing more than your assumptions.

If something cannot be demonstrated to exist; if there is no evidence for the existence of something; if that something does not have to relate to reality or experience in any way; why then should it be said to "exist" at all?

Why is the unsupported assumption that something exists to be taken as a "realisation"?

Nor have you yet distinguished the 'gods' from the Unicorn.

Not at all, one would only need to equate "god" with "nature" to leap frog that problem.

Or, one could interact with, and study, and experience, nature without assuming into existence a 'god', or any kind of 'gods' at all.

You are Special Pleading a layer into existence that cannot be shown to exist.

However unintelligible the existence of nature is, is irrelevant to the fact that we can relate to it through the experience of living. likewise with god.

I wonder if you realize that nature can be experienced, can be studied, can be unraveled and to one degree or another understood, without assuming into being the unevidenced 'gods'.

As long as you continue to assume your conclusion, you will continue to make the errors of trying to claim that your assumptions support the existence of the 'gods'.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is incorrect, remember I pointed out that the IPU is an imaginary being, an object of thought , entirely constructed in the mind and known to be. god is well known to be a philosophical concept. It is true that many representations of god are steeped in imaginary constructions, but the essential concept is intellectually derived.

Show the special pleading?

The patent and inescapable special pleading is your insistence that the entirely-constructed-in-the-mind imaginary 'gods' (that cannot be demonstrated to exist) are, somehow, different form the entirely-constructed-in-the-mind imaginary Unicorn.

The "philosophical construct" that any kind of 'god' exists is indistinguishable form the "philosophical construct" that the Unicorn exists--and the Unicorn is less internally inconsistent. The only significant difference is your pleading that they are, in fact, different because they must be, in fact, different.

The "essential concept" of the Unicorn is the same kind of mental process as the "essential concept" of any and all of the'gods' that humans have invented.

Without evidence, 'god':the Unicorn:the Teapot:Jame Retief.

 

[Slowvehicle]

What's the difference between "an object of thought , entirely constructed in the mind" and something whose "essential concept is intellectually derived"?

-because 'god'.

Only difference.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The first is and is known to be a object of fancy. The second is and is intended to be a representation of some object which may exist in the external world.

How does this bit of intellectual fancy footwork distinguish 'god' (any 'god', ot any of the'gods') from the Teapot?

(HINT: without special pleading, it doesn't.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

You look at nature and see god?

ETA: Please not the "laws need a lawmaker"again.

No, this time, it's "puppets need a puppeteer".

 

[punshhh]

No, he recently made an analogy to a "puppetmaster", "holding the whole thing together".

Which really sounds more like God as glue. That keeps things from flying apart.

Like gravity. Or the strong or weak nuclear forces.

Or something.

Because puppetmasters manupulate in easily discernible ways. Unless the "strings" are purely philosophical (read: imaginary).

Or something.

When analogies get this labored, they become useless.

I see, so if the strings can't be observed by humans, they don't exist? How convenient.

 

[punshhh]

The patent and inescapable special pleading is your insistence that the entirely-constructed-in-the-mind imaginary 'gods' (that cannot be demonstrated to exist) are, somehow, different form the entirely-constructed-in-the-mind imaginary Unicorn.

The "philosophical construct" that any kind of 'god' exists is indistinguishable form the "philosophical construct" that the Unicorn exists--and the Unicorn is less internally inconsistent. The only significant difference is your pleading that they are, in fact, different because they must be, in fact, different.

The "essential concept" of the Unicorn is the same kind of mental process as the "essential concept" of any and all of the'gods' that humans have invented.

Without evidence, 'god':the Unicorn:the Teapot:Jame Retief.

for teapot, read rusty metal object in my garden.

Some folk might suggest that its a unicorn's mirror, teapots indeed. The intellectually derived suggestion is that it is likely to be a technological artefact of an intelligent entity. Because there is evidence of such activity observable in nature.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I see, so if the strings can't be observed by humans, they don't exist? How convenient.

I see: if the Unicorn can't be observed by humans, she doesn't exist? How indistinguishable from 'god'.

You keep missing the very point you are making.

 

[punshhh]

You look at nature and see god?

I look at nature and see the existence of entities with agency.

 

[Slowvehicle]

for teapot, read rusty metal object in my garden.

Some folk might suggest that its a unicorn's mirror, teapots indeed. The intellectually derived suggestion is that it is likely to be a technological artefact of an intelligent entity. Because there is evidence of such activity observable in nature.

...and there is no practical, empirical, objective, non-anecdotal evidence of the activities of any 'god' or 'gods'.

You are aware that teapots actually exist, and can be observed to function, right?

You keep missing the very point you are making.

 

[punshhh]

I see: if the Unicorn can't be observed by humans, she doesn't exist? How indistinguishable from 'god'.

You keep missing the very point you are making.

I am not saying some kind of unicorn like creature doesn't exist. I know that the IPUIMG doesn't exist, because I don't have a garage.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I look at nature and see the existence of entities with agency.

Which of those "entities with agency" do you claim is 'god' (or are 'gods')?

Humans do, in fact, attribute agency where there is none (in fact, where there is not even an agent). This observed fact indicates that the 'gods' are all inventions, assumed into being to explain that agentless agency.

You keep missing the point you are actually making.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am not saying some kind of unicorn like creature doesn't exist. I know that the IPUIMG doesn't exist, because I don't have a garage.

Nor is The Unicorn the silly IPUIMG you have invented.

You do have a kitchen cabinet (and Neptune does have an orbit)--does that mean that The Teapot exists?

In the same way, it could be said that I know the imagined 'gods' do not exist, because I don't have a church.

The only way around the holes in your argument is the special pleading with which you paper them.

 

[punshhh]

...and there is no practical, empirical, objective, non-anecdotal evidence of the activities of any 'god' or 'gods'.

You are aware that teapots actually exist, and can be observed to function, right?

You keep missing the very point you are making.

No you are missing the point.

I can construct a concept about what the rusty metal object is and it doesn't matter if I constructed it using the imagination or not. It is what it is because it exists in the external world and what it is, is unknown.

I can also construct a concept about the unknown object which exists in the external world, which is the origin of our known world. If it exists it is a correlate of the rusty object. If it doesn't exist, then the issue of our origin from nothing raises its head again, and we're back at the beginning.

Essentially the issue is whether our known world is (to an extent) a result of intelligent input in nature, or that there is no intelligent input.
It can be empirically observed that there is intelligent input in nature, therefore intellectually it is rational to consider that nature includes intelligent agency and god falls into the set of intelligent agents.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No you are missing the point.

This is, simply, precious.

I can construct a concept about what the rusty metal object is and it doesn't matter if I constructed it using the imagination or not. It is what it is because it exists in the external world and what it is, is unknown.

Right. There is practical, empirical, non-anecdotal, objective, testable evidence of its existence.

I can also construct a concept about the unknown object which exists in the external world, which is the origin of our known world. If it exists it is a correlate of the rusty object. If it doesn't exist, then the issue of our origin from nothing raises its head again, and we're back at the beginning.

Right. If there were objective, empirical, non-anecdotal, testable, objective evidence, the thing about which you have constructed a concept could be said to exist in the "external world". Without such, imaginary thing is imaginary.

"The issue of our origins" is not resolved by imaging "agency", then imagining 'gods' to explain that constructed concept of "agency" where there is no agent.

Essentially the issue is whether our known world is (to an extent) a result of intelligent input in nature, or that there is no intelligent input.
It can be empirically observed that there is intelligent input in nature,

...and this is where your structure founders.

Please demonstrate (with empirical, practical, concrete, non-anecdotal, objective evidence) the "intelligent input" in "nature".

This should be fun.

therefore intellectually it is rational to consider that nature includes intelligent agency and god falls into the set of intelligent agents.

It is "rational" to consider that "nature includes intelligent agency" because you assume that "nature" requires "intelligent input"?

Circular arguments are, at least, easy to circumscribe. They can even be fun. They are not, however, productive.

 

[tsig]

for teapot, read rusty metal object in my garden.

Some folk might suggest that its a unicorn's mirror, teapots indeed. The intellectually derived suggestion is that it is likely to be a technological artefact of an intelligent entity. Because there is evidence of such activity observable in nature.

So if we see something that is so complex we can't understand it the best explanation is something even more complex that we can't understand.