Does God have a God?

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

God doesn't have to prove himself to us, silly goosies.

If it wants me to believe something, it is responsible to prove it to me.

If Aristotle is an absurd fool then I'm in good company.

I hope you enjoy each other.
Do you believe women have less teeth than men?

 

[(Q)]

Infinite regression does not fit into Q's theology of Atheism.

Hey Ham, no need to make cheap shots and then not answer my questions.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I wonder, maybe we christians have it all wrong, maybe God has been giddily making hell just right for you, stranger. I hope not though. Maybe if you have time you could check out the parable of lazarus and the rich man. Thought provoking stuff.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Do you believe women have less teeth than men?

No. Do you believe there is no such thing as physics?

What about that most infamous claim, that women have fewer teeth than men? At first glance, one wonders (as does M.) how such a claim could serve an ideological purpose. How are the interests of men advanced at the cost of women by the belief that they have more bicuspids and molars? But more importantly, M. points out that there is some evidence to suggest that Aristotle's claim about teeth is actually a testament to his careful observation rather than evidence of apriorism in his science. Although the evidence is speculative, there is some proof that the diets of ancient Mediterranean women were deficient in vitamin C and D, deficiencies which resulted in diseases such as scurvy, osteomalacia, and osteoporosis, especially in pregnant and lactating women.5 No one knows exactly what Aristotle saw when he looked into the mouths of Mrs. Aristotle and her friends, but if he consistently saw fewer teeth that would hardly have been implausible given what we know about diet, calcium deficiency, and tooth loss.

Link

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I wonder, maybe we christians have it all wrong, maybe God has been giddily making hell just right for you, stranger.

HUH?

I hope not though.

WHY would you hope not??? Don't pretend to care about me.

Maybe if you have time you could check out the parable of lazarus and the rich man. Thought provoking stuff.

I checked out that silly fable before you were born.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

No. Do you believe there is no such thing as physics?

“ What about that most infamous claim, that women have fewer teeth than men? At first glance, one wonders (as does M.) how such a claim could serve an ideological purpose. How are the interests of men advanced at the cost of women by the belief that they have more bicuspids and molars? But more importantly, M. points out that there is some evidence to suggest that Aristotle's claim about teeth is actually a testament to his careful observation rather than evidence of apriorism in his science. Although the evidence is speculative, there is some proof that the diets of ancient Mediterranean women were deficient in vitamin C and D, deficiencies which resulted in diseases such as scurvy, osteomalacia, and osteoporosis, especially in pregnant and lactating women.5 No one knows exactly what Aristotle saw when he looked into the mouths of Mrs. Aristotle and her friends, but if he consistently saw fewer teeth that would hardly have been implausible given what we know about diet, calcium deficiency, and tooth loss. ”

If somehow I could know, I wouldn't be surprised either way that might have happened. It is possible but there isn't enough to explain for certain whether his ignorance was incidental or careless.
This applies several lines of reasoning tho which you & others won't apply to YOUR religion.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

OOPS! I meant to put this in another thread & have now done so. Hopefully not much risking the wrath of the gods.

Near the end of Metaphysics, Book Λ, Aristotle introduces a surprising question, asking "whether we have to suppose one such mover or more than one, and if the latter, how many."[1] Aristotle concludes that the number of all the movers equals the number of separate movements, and we can determine these by considering the mathematical science most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy. Although the mathematicians differ on the number of movements, Aristotle considers that the number of spheres would be 47 or 55.

 

[OilIsMastery]

OOPS! I meant to put this in another thread & have now done so. Hopefully not much risking the wrath of the gods.

Near the end of Metaphysics, Book Λ, Aristotle introduces a surprising question, asking "whether we have to suppose one such mover or more than one, and if the latter, how many."[1] Aristotle concludes that the number of all the movers equals the number of separate movements, and we can determine these by considering the mathematical science most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy. Although the mathematicians differ on the number of movements, Aristotle considers that the number of spheres would be 47 or 55.

Aristotle doesn't conclude that. He speculates and admits it's a possibility i.e. hypothesis... In the Metaphysics, which is where he actually does his concluding, since Metaphysics means things which come AFTER the Physics, he says otherwise.

 

[Jan Ardena]

0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Which is..........?

Yep, you guessed it, a part of the 1.
Without the 1 there can be no0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
For perception of existence to occurr there has to be something that just is, and from that thing, everything comes.

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

I suppose a similar question would be: if God created us what created God?

Or is God his own God, and would that make him a Satanist?

the given definition of "god" is that he is causeless. Not sure why atheists have a big problem with this. Its not uncommon to encounter causeless elements even in reductionist paradigms, since eternal regression of causes poses unique philosophical problems
:shrug:

 

[Pete]

the given definition of "god" is that he is causeless. Not sure why atheists have a big problem with this. Its not uncommon to encounter causeless elements even in reductionist paradigms, since eternal regression of causes poses unique philosophical problems
:shrug:

I suspect that what most thinking atheists have a problem with (yes, I'm aware that there are also many unthinking atheists) is that theists seem to think that a causeless universe as absurd, but have no problem with a causeless God.

If a causeless God is acceptable, then why not a causeless Universe?

 

[lightgigantic]

I suspect that what most thinking atheists have a problem with (yes, I'm aware that there are also many unthinking atheists) is that theists seem to think that a causeless universe as absurd, but have no problem with a causeless God.

If a causeless God is acceptable, then why not a causeless Universe?

A causeless universe without consciousness as the causeless element poses unique problems .... namely how design comes into being and how (apparent) universal constants remain (apparently) constant. For instance, a perfectly functional car will remain immobile for practically eternity until someone sits in the driver's seat, yet a conscious element can transform even a dysfunctional car into a mobile one in a few moments.

From here, atheists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena. Theists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness isn't.

Theists have a means of application for verifying this claim.
Atheists don't.

 

[Michael]

I think the better question is does God have sex? Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs would suggest yes.

 

[Pete]

A causeless universe without consciousness as the causeless element poses unique problems .... namely how design comes into being and how (apparent) universal constants remain apparently) constant.

For starters, evolution by natural selection is a reasonable mechanism for the origin of "design".
Furthermore, supposing the existence of God does not make those problems go away, but simply pushes them one step further back while adding other problems.

For instance, a perfectly functional car will remain immobile for practically eternity until someone sits in the driver's seat, yet a conscious element can transform even a dysfunctional car into a mobile one in a few moments.

A universe is not a car, I'm sure you'll agree.
Consider galaxies, stars, planets, oceans, clouds, volcanoes, crystal formation, rainbows... there are countless things all around that have no apparent need of conscious elements for mobility and complexity.

From here, atheists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena. Theists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness isn't.

Theists have a means of application for verifying this claim.

What means?

Atheists don't.

The origins of consciousness is under active investigation from a number of angles (mainly neuroscience and artificial intelligence). If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
Similarly, if consciousness is not materially reducible, then this should also eventually become apparent - eg if a perfect computer model of a human brain fails to exhibit consciousness.

 

[Enmos]

Impossible. Then it wouldn't be the first cause.

Idiotic.

Impossible. An infinite regression of causality is logically absurd because if the past were infinite, then time would never arrive at the present.

Even more idiotic.

An infinite level mage by the name of God...

Ah.. that explains it

 

[lightgigantic]

Pete
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
A causeless universe without consciousness as the causeless element poses unique problems .... namely how design comes into being and how (apparent) universal constants remain apparently) constant.
”
For starters, evolution by natural selection is a reasonable mechanism for the origin of "design".

which lands one into the problems posed by abiogenesis (metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists)

Furthermore, supposing the existence of God does not make those problems go away, but simply pushes them one step further back while adding other problems.

it's not clear what specific problems you are suggesting

“
For instance, a perfectly functional car will remain immobile for practically eternity until someone sits in the driver's seat, yet a conscious element can transform even a dysfunctional car into a mobile one in a few moments.
”
A universe is not a car, I'm sure you'll agree.

it is in the sense that it is matter bereft of consciousness

Consider galaxies, stars, planets, oceans, clouds, volcanoes, crystal formation, rainbows... there are countless things all around that have no apparent need of conscious elements for mobility and complexity.

you say there is no complexity in a galaxy?

“
From here, atheists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena. Theists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness isn't.

Theists have a means of application for verifying this claim.
”
What means?

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

“
Atheists don't.
”
The origins of consciousness is under active investigation from a number of angles (mainly neuroscience and artificial intelligence). If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
Similarly, if consciousness is not materially reducible, then this should also eventually become apparent - eg if a perfect computer model of a human brain fails to exhibit consciousness.

hence, atheists don't

 

[Pete]

which lands one into the problems posed by abiogenesis (metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists)

Yes, the origin of the first replicator is a problem, but a different problem.

it is in the sense that it is matter bereft of consciousness

you say there is no complexity in a galaxy?

Clearly there is complexity in a galaxy. There is mobility and complexity in things that are bereft of consciousness - your immobile car is not the general case.

I apologize for the awkward phrasing in the previous post.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you please explain?

hence, atheists don't

Care to explain?
Did I not just describe a non-theist means of verification of whether consciousness has a material basis?

 

[lightgigantic]

Pete
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
which lands one into the problems posed by abiogenesis (metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists)
”
Yes, the origin of the first replicator is a problem, but a different problem.

and a key player of the "natural selection" argument if you want to start discussing origins that don't require consciousness

you say there is no complexity in a galaxy?

”
Clearly there is complexity in a galaxy. There is mobility and complexity in things that are bereft of consciousness - your immobile car is not the general case.

I apologize for the awkward phrasing in the previous post.

the mobility and complexity of things bereft of consciousness either have a cause that is unknown or cannot be indicated as being independent of consciousness

“
never encountered a normative description in scripture?
”
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you please explain?

never encountered a description in scripture how one should act in order to know god, or how one can know that one is acting in a way that enables one to know god?

“
hence, atheists don't
”
Care to explain?
Did I not just describe a non-theist means of verification of whether consciousness has a material basis?

Basically the more technical the computer, the greater the number of technicians it has in tow for when it malfunctions ... meanwhile other people in high places are pulling their hair out trying to work out ways to curb the population of everything from cockroaches to humans

 

[Pete]

and a key player of the "natural selection" argument if you want to start discussing origins that don't require consciousness.

Well, the start of this sub-topic was your mention of the origin of "design", by which I understood you to mean complex life.
Evolution by natural selection is a mechanism by which complex life ("design") can arise from simple replicators.
The origin of the simple replicators is an interesting topic, but not that interesting if you're not an organic chemist. Simple replicators aren't so complex that they need special explanation.

the mobility and complexity of things bereft of consciousness either have a cause that is unknown or cannot be indicated as being independent of consciousness

You don't know the cause of rainbows?
The cause of the other items mentioned are there to be learned as well.
In each case, the mobility and complexity arises in known ways from chaos and simplicity.

Does chaos need an explanation any more than God needs an explanation?

never encountered a description in scripture how one should act in order to know god, or how one can know that one is acting in a way that enables one to know god?

Yes, we've had this discussion before. You are talking of subjective means, means that inform us of ourselves. By looking for evidence solely within oneself, it is not possible to distinguish between hallucination and reality.
Such evidence is not reliable at best, and completely meaningless in general.

Basically the more technical the computer, the greater the number of technicians it has in tow for when it malfunctions ... meanwhile other people in high places are pulling their hair out trying to work out ways to curb the population of everything from cockroaches to humans

:bugeye:
Did you type that into the right post? It appears to have no relationship whatsoever to our discussion.

 

[greenberg]

Furthermore, supposing the existence of God does not make those problems go away, but simply pushes them one step further back while adding other problems.

And you don't want problems, right?