(March 7, 2012 at 11:48 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Because my water-pik is calling I only have time for a short reply. You are essentially correct. You could say that everything comes out am abyss of infinite possibility, pregnant void, or similar idea without calling it god. The key concept is not what you call that condition, but how well it fits with reality as we live it on a day to day basis. For me the scientific method is very effective for understanding the physical universe. But strictly limiting inquiry to empirical verification of falsifiable hypothesis excludes from considerations all forms of subjective experience, our thoughts, feeling, sensations, how and why we assign meaning and significance to things, etc. In short, positing the existence of the divine expands the definition of reality beyond what is only physical. This allows room for phenomena that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. Sure it's a long tentative slog to go from Cause to "personal Lord and Savior" , but you have to start somewhere.

Ah so your deism/agnosticism, if that is how you classify yourself, is based more on a explanation for what you see as non-physical phenomenon? I agree that while the origin of a thought is physical the thought itself is an abstract idea. As in what particles make up a thought per say? Sure neuroelectricity/chemicals may be involved but the product that they create is not a physical entity in of itself.

However again I freely admit that there may be a metaphysical presence or metaphysical things such as ideas. What I do not see though is how this makes the idea of deity any more likely then something else. Do I think that science understands these phenomenons yet? No I do not and it may never breach that part of our existence. However not being able to explain it does not default it to a divine/deity explanation that also cannot be measured/explained anyway. It isn't that it is impossible for such a thing as deity to be involved it is just that you can't prove it or at least I haven't seen anyone who can yet.

(March 7, 2012 at 11:15 pm)Voltair Wrote: If we remove physics from the equation aka pre-universe who is to say that the uncaused cause in a sense is a fluctuation in matter or something else?

This is a good question. What we know of matter is that is time bound. There is movement and part of it's properties is time. Does it really make sense to say tiny particles all each caused time or that space caused time all of sudden to exist while there was no time?

I think that it's impossible, and anything physical doesn't seem to be able to cause time to begin.

So I conclude it must be an powerful magical type being, because it needs to bring into existence time which is not in existence.

Abstract metaphysical things can't bring time into existence or matter which has time as a property, so it must be a personal living being that has will.

Quote:How does one give personal characteristics or deity based characteristics to this cause?

From properly basic knowledge of him (spiritual instinct) or personally I think reflecting on the nature of morality and greatness will point to an Ultimate Moral Being.

But if we ignore that, and look at the fact it has personal will, we can see it has high intelligence, and we an associate moral thought with high consciousness and it seems we been given a lot of good, opportunity to be honorable, etc, which shows good will on part of the First Cause Being(s). We can also see it's immensly powerful and is a magical being.

With what eyes? Our magical eyes? No. "properly basic knowledge/spiritual instinct" is just another way to say "I believe".

(March 8, 2012 at 1:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: With what eyes? Our magical eyes?

Eyes of the Soul, magical eyes yes.

Sounds like bullshit, evidence?

(March 8, 2012 at 12:45 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 7, 2012 at 11:15 pm)Voltair Wrote: If we remove physics from the equation aka pre-universe who is to say that the uncaused cause in a sense is a fluctuation in matter or something else?

This is a good question. What we know of matter is that is time bound. There is movement and part of it's properties is time. Does it really make sense to say tiny particles all each caused time or that space caused time all of sudden to exist while there was no time?

I think that it's impossible, and anything physical doesn't seem to be able to cause time to begin.

So I conclude it must be an powerful magical type being, because it needs to bring into existence time which is not in existence.

Abstract metaphysical things can't bring time into existence or matter which has time as a property, so it must be a personal living being that has will.

Quote:How does one give personal characteristics or deity based characteristics to this cause?

From properly basic knowledge of him (spiritual instinct) or personally I think reflecting on the nature of morality and greatness will point to an Ultimate Moral Being.

But if we ignore that, and look at the fact it has personal will, we can see it has high intelligence, and we an associate moral thought with high consciousness and it seems we been given a lot of good, opportunity to be honorable, etc, which shows good will on part of the First Cause Being(s). We can also see it's immensly powerful and is a magical being.

There seems to be a lot of jumps there. First of all I would agree that as far as matter INSIDE of our universe etc that the cause and effect principle holds true. However how do we know that outside of our universe there are not particles/units of energy that work under a different system? I mean all of this really is mental masturbation in the end but still.

You mention knowledge through self revelation. Not to be insulting but how do you differentiate between your self revelation being legitimate versus it being something you wish to be true? You mention a lot of qualities about this said deity which don't seem to have any basis in evidence. The moral argument for a deity's existence is possible but morality also has strong roots in practicality.

I personally am an idealist with certain morals but it is not because I can root it as absolute truth it is because I think it is what is best. Not to mention the things I hold to have repeatedly shown good results and work inside of reality. For example I do not lie most of the time, not including self disillusionment, but I would most certainly lie in certain circumstances. I fail to see how any of this is proof of a deity. You are attributing qualities based on self revealed experience/knowledge?

What about those of us who, again no offense, don't have this special gift of divine revelation? Are we simply to trust yours? I do not believe anyone can offer any evidence of the supernatural outside of their own mind/beliefs. This may work for self conviction but to the rest of us how do we know it is not all in your mind/a projection of your desires onto reality?

(March 8, 2012 at 12:45 am)MysticKnight Wrote: But if we ignore that, and look at the fact it has personal will, we can see it has high intelligence, and we an associate moral thought with high consciousness and it seems we been given a lot of good, opportunity to be honorable, etc, which shows good will on part of the First Cause Being(s). We can also see it's immensly powerful and is a magical being.

I highlighted all that I felt was important. You drew all these conclusions from the creation of the universe?
Sorry, but none of your conclusions logically follow-

Your God could be stupid, creating this universe by random but still meeting all other attributes that allow him to be free from all the limits the universe has (I don't grant you that, btw, I was only showing you with your own logic).

If own being "given" alot of good = a moral God, then the fact that bad exists too proves that there is no moral God? A moral God cannot be a moral God and not not a moral God, as this violates the law of noncontradiction. Good =/= a good God.

Surely immensely powerful, but magical? I suppose, but there would have to be some evidence that magical things even exist.

Just putting that out there.

(March 8, 2012 at 1:42 am)Voltair Wrote: There seems to be a lot of jumps there. First of all I would agree that as far as matter INSIDE of our universe etc that the cause and effect principle holds true. However how do we know that outside of our universe there are not particles/units of energy that work under a different system?

Every effect has a cause, can be said to be properly basic. At any rate, even if we don't know have intuitive knowledge of this, when it comes to explaining our universe, we should hold this principle all times. It doesn't make sense that the orginal constitutes of the universe didn't follow this principle and all of sudden the principle applies to it and it became a property of it. That's illogical.

Quote:You mention knowledge through self revelation. Not to be insulting but how do you differentiate between your self revelation being legitimate versus it being something you wish to be true?

Well I do wish it to be true. But the same can be asked about morality. How do we know morality is not a delusion, and should be followed. How do we know it has authority over us? If it's properly basic knowledge, at the end, you don't need to justify it.

Quote: You mention a lot of qualities about this said deity which don't seem to have any basis in evidence. The moral argument for a deity's existence is possible but morality also has strong roots in practicality.

Well I think morality speaks of an authority to the infinite degree, the nature of moral authority is such that it's height of authority is ultimately high, what can that authority be but God.

This is not the only argument for morality. I have basically three arguments from morality, that make it seem to me it's obvious God exists.

Quote:What about those of us who, again no offense, don't have this special gift of divine revelation? Are we simply to trust yours?

Well I don't know for sure, but I would imagine we all have the ability to see God so to speak. It's just some are not looking, and although his light shines upon them, and they can realize the Sun from the sunlight, they don't.

This can because they are looking for rational proof instead of spiritual truth.

But God is obviously Spiritual and knowledge of him will not be in the realms of cold hard dry logic, but rather metaphysical intuition.

Quote:I do not believe anyone can offer any evidence of the supernatural outside of their own mind/beliefs. This may work for self conviction but to the rest of us how do we know it is not all in your mind/a projection of your desires onto reality?

I don't think you would know by trusting me or another person or mystics, it's rather should be self-realization.

Ah, can you give me your three basic moral arguments?

(March 8, 2012 at 2:54 am)Voltair Wrote: Ah, can you give me your three basic moral arguments?

Sure. Tommorrow though. It's 1:57 Am right now and my mind is not really up to it now.