(August 18, 2015 at 8:02 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: K~.....But I'm not holding my breath just in case.

You know, Randy said he'll get around to it....Some 2 months ago -_-

I did? Sorry...

Yep. You said you'd do it but you don't want to have too many threads active at once. So if you have any time, feel free to do it anytime here.

Speaking of which....anybody seen Kingpin? ._.

(August 18, 2015 at 8:05 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 8:02 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I did? Sorry...

Yep. You said you'd do it but you don't want to have too many threads active at once. So if you have any time, feel free to do it anytime here.

Speaking of which....anybody seen Kingpin? ._.

Sorry vic, was gone for a few days with family stuff.  I'm back now!

Here's my response:

First cause:  Everything physical no matter how you slice it can only get the explanation for its existence outside itself.  Causation is either self-caused, uncaused or caused by another.  Self-caused is self defeating.  So the first cause must be something that is uncaused and non-physical.

Deism:  An always existing (uncaused) spirit that brought in to existence all things.  I find the first cause premise to be logical, so getting to Deism is a natural step.

Theism:  This is where some cannot make the logical leap.  There three major monotheistic religions in the world.  Islam, Judaism and Christianity.  For me the leap revolves around the person of Jesus Christ, his fulfillment of messianic prophecy, his death and resurrection in history, the explosion of the early church and willingness of the disciples and apostles to die for the gospel message lends credence to its truth for me.

Abrahamic God:  See above

As far as my particular Abrahamic God, I would say that we don't all believe in a different God, but we all have differing viewpoints of God in how our personal lives have been affected by belief in Him.  

I am personally non-denominational, and actually have a lot of issues with "religion" in general and the approach the church takes on many issues.  Belief in God is a personal thing, a personal relationship and should stay as such.  

My personal version of this God is as I explained above, will be subjective to the personal experiences in my life.

Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

And how exactly would Jesus make the connection? That doesn't make sense. What of Muhammad, John Smith, thousands of other prophets? They don't fill the logical gap between the first cause and a theistic god. You're doing the same thing Mystic did: approaching it in reverse. You're starting with Jesus and ending up with first cause. The logical order is exactly opposite. Through what process of elimination did you arrive at Jesus Christ, starting at first cause?

Thanks for answering btw, both of you.

(August 18, 2015 at 9:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

And how exactly would Jesus make the connection? That doesn't make sense. What of Muhammad, John Smith, thousands of other prophets? They don't fill the logical gap between the first cause and a theistic god. You're doing the same thing Mystic did: approaching it in reverse. You're starting with Jesus and ending up with first cause. The logical order is exactly opposite. Through what process of elimination did you arrive at Jesus Christ, starting at first cause?

Thanks for answering btw, both of you.

Vic, you are right, at least in my case at approaching it from reverse.  I certainly started at Jesus and tested backwards for logical consistency and coherence.  I looked in to Islam and pantheism as well.  Muhammad was a mere man who when he was getting the revelation from Allah did not know what was happening and it was his wife Khadijah who took him to her Christian cousin Waraqah who claimed it Gabriel revealing this to Muhammad.  Islam borrowed many things from Judaism and Christianity and refer to Deut. 18:18 as the prophecy of Muhammad.  Jesus on the other hand did not claim to be a messenger or receiving revelation from God.  He claimed to be God.  He performed miracles, forgave sin, paid the ultimate price and rose again.  Far different from Muhammad.  But if you don't accept any of those things happening in Jesus life, or even that he existed at all I can understand the difficulty in leaping.  

Every religion in the world if you remove its founder or the leader of its movement, it could continue on, with the exception of Christianity.  If you remove Christ, from Christian, you are left with IAN and Ian can't help you.  

Christianity has a uniqueness in it.  In every other religion, you pay the price for your mistakes.  In Islam, your good deeds must outweigh your bad and you must follow the Five pillars.  In Hinduism every birth is a rebirth paying for the previous life until you achieve moksha.  In Christianity, Christ pays for all mankind's mistakes and one simply has to accept the gift of salvation by grace.

(August 18, 2015 at 9:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

For me this one is logical.  Because consciousness as we understand is an outworking or byproduct of an intelligent mind and the world is intelligible (can be understood and has order and laws) then the first cause must be an intelligent mind and therefore conscious.  Only intelligent minds with conscious can bring forth ordered, purposeful complexity.

(August 18, 2015 at 9:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

And how exactly would Jesus make the connection? That doesn't make sense. What of Muhammad, John Smith, thousands of other prophets? They don't fill the logical gap between the first cause and a theistic god. You're doing the same thing Mystic did: approaching it in reverse. You're starting with Jesus and ending up with first cause. The logical order is exactly opposite. Through what process of elimination did you arrive at Jesus Christ, starting at first cause?

Thanks for answering btw, both of you.

Good question.
Why does the first cause need to be very much like a human mind and can be understood in terms analogies to human mind? The lack of a real answer to this question is the reason why I'm an atheist.

(August 18, 2015 at 10:23 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 9:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

For me this one is logical.  Because consciousness as we understand is an outworking or byproduct of an intelligent mind and the world is intelligible (can be understood and has order and laws) then the first cause must be an intelligent mind and therefore conscious.  Only intelligent minds with conscious can bring forth ordered, purposeful complexity.

Machines can product complexity. Why not something like a computer?

(August 18, 2015 at 10:33 am)Pizza Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 10:23 am)lkingpinl Wrote: For me this one is logical.  Because consciousness as we understand is an outworking or byproduct of an intelligent mind and the world is intelligible (can be understood and has order and laws) then the first cause must be an intelligent mind and therefore conscious.  Only intelligent minds with conscious can bring forth ordered, purposeful complexity.

Machines can product complexity. Why not something like a computer?

And do computers/machines arise by natural unguided processes to produce the complexity?  No they are designed by intelligent minds to do so.