I wonder what the carbon footprint is for religions.
Very small if they could all walk on water
I wonder what the carbon footprint is for religions.
A bet on what?Are you willing to place a bet???
Indeed.That's why, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I would even be willing to bet that the ultimate answer is not only unknown, but is unknowable.
And you missed the part where I say original cause is a matter of probability and in case of a "timeless permittive state", this probability becomes certainty.A bet on what?
That you're not actually responding to the matter that I raised?
Sure - how much do you want to lose?
If I suggest that "it's turtles all the way down - until a case of special pleading" and all you do is point to an individual turtle and describe it, you're not addressing the point.
I suspect you are correct.Well, it's very unlikely that it is intelligent and motivated. Think of what is required to achieve such sentient properties, when we know that the smallest dynamic function is probabilistic quantum mechanics.
I am just keeping it realistic......unlike theists.
The same QM. Motivation is not required for inanimate matter and inanimate chemicals to form biomolecules which, in the hierarchy of orders, are causal to living systems and sentience. The laws of "attraction and repulsion" will provide all the required dynamic configurations and forces for "work". It is not all that complicated, IMO.I suspect you are correct.
On the other hand, I am a tiny little part of the universe and I am "intelligent" and "motivated". I don't know what sort of emergent properties can arise with something the size of the universe.
Being a matter of probability doesn't actually say anything about what actually gives rise, only that the effect is probabilistic given the cause.And you missed the part where I say original cause is a matter of probability and in case of a "timeless permittive state", this probability becomes certainty.
I'm glad we agree.Otherwise it is turtles all the way down.
I'm patently aware - hence my initial post on the matter (post #491).Apparently you do not seem to understand that the presumption of a Creator God is a "special pleading".
So you believe, at least.Therefore, Creation was not a motivated act but a spontaneous event. There is no other solution to the turtle problem!
You are not understanding the implication of the wording.And what gives rise to the "timeless permittive state"?
Turtles into infinity is special pleading IMO. At some point the notion of being becomes an abstraction, indicating only the presence of values and functions which have, over time produced the order we see today.Any solution that involves stopping the turtling seems to me to be special-pleading.
Hmmm. There's a lot of "IMO"s and "I believe"s in there. Apparently it's not only theists who are afraid to admit that they don't KNOW.The same QM. Motivation is not required for inanimate matter and inanimate chemicals to form biomolecules which, in the hierarchy of orders, are causal to living systems and sentience. The laws of "attraction and repulsion" will provide all the required dynamic configurations and forces for "work". It is not all that complicated, IMO.
I believe that values and functions of matter have an inherent communication (language) in common as part of the very fabric of space. This language only needs some 33 values and a handfull of equations. The rest is just a matter of distance and time, it's all probabilistic.
It is an abstract Pseudo-Intelligence that allows for things to happen in a consistent and orderly manner. It needs not be sentient, it just requires time. Sentience is an emergent result of this mathematical pseudo-intelligent work, a potential with high probability, over time becoming explicated in reality in many forms in many biological systems.
IMO, this is why human mathematics work so well, our physical existence is mathematically in perfect tune with the universe. This mathematical evolution in species can be observed in an enormous amount of data where matter and organisms act in a consistent and mathemaically describable behaviors.
Actually we can reduce it to; mathematics lie outside of human control and all things in this universe are subject to mathematical values and functions. But we are able to observe and apply what we learn.......
I have no objection to the civility of that statement, but it tacitly condones a false way of life, IMO.Hmmm. There's a lot of "IMO"s and "I believe"s in there. Apparently it's not only theists who are afraid to admit that they don't KNOW.
That's OK. I don't know how old you are, but at the age of 60 I've become quite comfortable with "I don't know".
Saying "I don't know" in no way condones a false way of life. It is simply an acknowledgement that when the question is asked we don't know the answer. "I don't know" doesn't mean that you can't, or shouldn't review the matter with critical thinking skills. It doesn't mean that you can't reject the answers that some come up with. It simply means you don't know what the actual answer is.I have no objection to the civility of that statement, but it tacitly condones a false way of life, IMO.
Religion offers deniability of responsibility, Atheism does not, it assigns responsibility.
I think outright rejection is the more honest and demands a different, more realistic perspective on the universe, life and society
Objectively, I agree, but if you ask a religious person, they will undoubtedly take the position that if you cannot definitely disprove God, he must exist by default.Saying "I don't know" in no way condones a false way of life.
Can I suggest a few of things: first, don't discuss with everyone as if they are Jan, secondly don't discuss with everyone as though Jan Ardena is the epitome of a normal person, and lastly don't base every discussion with other people on what Jan Ardena might have said.Objectively, I agree, but if you ask a religious person, they will undoubtedly take the position that if you cannot definitely disprove God, he must exist by default.
Remember Jan's ; "God IS". No argument that "we don't know" is sufficient to change that perspective.
He could not even define his God. i.e. not only does that indicate he doesn't know, but indicates that he doesn't even know what he doesn't know.
The statement, "God IS", is "not even wrong"......
I can agree with that. And I welcome a healthy discussion on possible metaphysical (latent) conditions and causalities.Can I suggest a few of things: first, don't discuss with everyone as if they are Jan, secondly don't discuss with everyone as though Jan Ardena is the epitome of a normal person, and lastly don't base every discussion with other people on what Jan Ardena might have said.
Discuss with people on what they have said. Otherwise threads will be destroyed not only by Jan Ardena‘s direct involvement but by proxy as well.
if you cannot disprove God, he must exist by default
The curious thing is that it seems to apply only to the belief (without proof) in the existence of an a priori sentient and motivated GodSo extrapolating onwards ANYTHING which cannot be disproved exist by default
motivated God
That is the 60,000 dollar question.WHY ARE WE HERE ?
I am surprised you reached for God in your answer.That is the 60,000 dollar question.