• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...

You just begged the question.

You can't prove there's an intelligent agent by assuming there's an intelligent agent.
 
tsig said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The best explanation for my wife is her mother. :D
 
punshhh said:
I look at nature and see the existence of entities with agency.
Click to expand...

Lest we forget, have a look at punshhh's avatar. In there, a snapshot iirc of a mossy tree, he sees actual fairies and brownies. He had a thread here years ago, it may have been his first arrival. I bet he still sees these "entities with agency" in that jpg.
 
punshhh said:
Numerous ways, for example, holding the whole thing together like a puppet master.
Click to expand...
No, you can't get away with labeling the universe "creation" in order to prove the necessity of a "creator." That's assuming your conclusion.

punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wrong, gods do need to be relatable, because by definition, gods are worshiped beings. A creator being is not a god unless it is worshiped. A prime mover is not a god unless it is worshiped. Nature is not a god unless it is worshiped. Worship is an activity derived from human experience and interaction with a belief structure and how one views the world.

Of course, the bigger problem here is that you keep assuming a god.

punshhh said:
Not at all, one would only need to equate "god" with "nature" to leap frog that problem. 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.
Click to expand...
Only if your idea of studying nature is to throw up your hands and say God did it, which conveniently fails to answer any questions or advance our knowledge and understanding of the natural world. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but over the past few centuries, science has been kicking big holes in the world view that every unexplained natural phenomenon is attributable to God. Humans are often at the mercy of nature; we need not be at the mercy of unintelligible gods.
 
punshhh said:
It can be empirically observed that there is intelligent input in nature,
Click to expand...
Where?

punshhh said:
therefore intellectually it is rational to consider that nature includes intelligent agency
Click to expand...
So because humans exist, create things, and are intelligent; that must mean some bigger and more powerful intelligence exists and created the world? That's like saying that since small earth-shakings are caused by animal stampedes, large earth-shakings must be caused by the stampedes of some mysterious invisible larger animals.

punshhh said:
and god falls into the set of intelligent agents.
Click to expand...
In order to avoid begging the question, God cannot be the only thing permitted into the category of intelligent agents. Oops.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
<snip for focus>
So because humans exist, create things, and are intelligent; that must mean some bigger and more powerful intelligence exists and created the world? That's like saying that since small earth-shakings are caused by animal stampedes, large earth-shakings must be caused by the stampedes of some mysterious invisible larger animals.<snip for focus>
Click to expand...

Powerful is the Unicorn!

All Praise!
 
punshhh said:
Hi Tassman,
I have been down your neck of the woods recently, had a great time.
Click to expand...

Sydney, I guess you mean; yes a great city and my home town - glad you enjoyed it. But I’m working in Bangkok at present.

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.
Click to expand...

Observations about nature don’t result in the intellectual realization of God. I guess you are referring to a “first-cause” style argument, i.e. there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another), namely God. But this is Special Pleading; if everything needs a cause, what caused God?
 
Donn said:
Lest we forget, have a look at punshhh's avatar. In there, a snapshot iirc of a mossy tree, he sees actual fairies and brownies. He had a thread here years ago, it may have been his first arrival. I bet he still sees these "entities with agency" in that jpg.
Click to expand...
My avatar has the appearance of a fairy, the world we find ourselves in has the appearance of the world we know.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
No, you can't get away with labeling the universe "creation" in order to prove the necessity of a "creator." That's assuming your conclusion.
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant, as I am not attempting to prove anything, or say there is a necessity for anything. Although I accept that there probably are necessary things.

Wrong, gods do need to be relatable, because by definition, gods are worshiped beings. A creator being is not a god unless it is worshiped. A prime mover is not a god unless it is worshiped. Nature is not a god unless it is worshiped. Worship is an activity derived from human experience and interaction with a belief structure and how one views the world.
Click to expand...
I don't see the relevance of worship, surely this is a response derived through religion. If god exists, it exists independent of humanity and its responses.
Of course, the bigger problem here is that you keep assuming a god.
Click to expand...
I don't assume one, I consider that it might exist for the purposes of discussion of gods. The problem is that you and numerous other posters on this forum, assume a lack of gods, with only the flimsiest rational justification.

Only if your idea of studying nature is to throw up your hands and say God did it, which conveniently fails to answer any questions or advance our knowledge and understanding of the natural world. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but over the past few centuries, science has been kicking big holes in the world view that every unexplained natural phenomenon is attributable to God. Humans are often at the mercy of nature; we need not be at the mercy of unintelligible gods.
Click to expand...
The erosion of such explanations is irrelevant to the issue. These are imagined explanations, humanity is bound to clothe the concept of god with human characteristics. If god exists, it exists independently of humanity and what humanity thinks.

I suggest you discard these arguments as I am considering a philosophically derived god, for which such arguments are irrelevant.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
Where?
Click to expand...
Life exhibits agency.


So because humans exist, create things, and are intelligent; that must mean some bigger and more powerful intelligence exists and created the world? That's like saying that since small earth-shakings are caused by animal stampedes, large earth-shakings must be caused by the stampedes of some mysterious invisible larger animals.
Click to expand...
Your use of the word "must", makes it irrelevant. I am not claiming anything means an intelligent creator must exist, only that similar characteristics can be observed in nature. As such, to consider that there may be intelligent agency in nature, is not purely imaginary, it can be scientifically observed.


In order to avoid begging the question, God cannot be the only thing permitted into the category of intelligent agents. Oops.
Click to expand...
I am not considering an omnipotent etc God, which your point addresses. I am considering god like beings and there are numerous entities in the set of intelligent agents.
 
Tassman said:
Sydney, I guess you mean; yes a great city and my home town - glad you enjoyed it. But I’m working in Bangkok at present.
Click to expand...
New Zealand, I tramped the Abell Tassman national park, amongst others.


Observations about nature don’t result in the intellectual realization of God. I guess you are referring to a “first-cause” style argument, i.e. there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another), namely God. But this is Special Pleading; if everything needs a cause, what caused God?
Click to expand...
Observations about nature do result in an intellectual realisation of god, with a small g( ie, finite gods). No not first cause, this is old apologetics. The first cause arguments assumes that human logic is in someway correct, this cannot be established in regard to issues for which there is no rational explanation, among others.
 
16.5 said:
If you intentionly asked the question in the most obnoxious way possible in the hope of not getting an answer that would challenge your preconceptions, I dare say you have succeeded!

Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

oooh you think there are things in any religion that can challenge preconceptions or rational people?
 
"Observations about nature do result in an intellectual realisation of god, "

why? it did not for me. i don't even see the conection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom