I read them.
Your first one said that if 'supernatural' wasn't the criterion for Godliness then absolutely anything could be God... not sure how you came to that one.

If you're looking for a simple rule or definition that covers all 'gods' then you're misunderstanding the nature of how language functions in the real world.
There's no justification for your demand for a simple rule.
Your second one said that if God wasn't supernatural then the cosmological argument didn't work.
So um... does it work when God is supernatural?
Again, you're trying to demand a simple rule/motivation for a person to 'invoke' God. Why?
Why should there be a simplistic reason?
God belief is a complex cultural phenomenon with multiple background and reasons.

 

That's not supernatural in the metaphysical sense.
Metaphysical supernaturalism doesn't allow for mentality or willing - they are natural concepts.
Not that I needed to even say that.
The film showed a coherent situation which contained a character that most people would be happy to call 'God'.
Just one example of a metaphysically natural conception of God.
Yes, his actions violated the laws of physics, but to violate the laws of physics isn't incoherent - just false.

 

 

It doesn't matter who you are or what you're debating.
If a person says "That's not what I believe" then you're straw-manning them.
If you then tell them that they have to believe it, then you're wicker-manning them.
Either way, you're not debating what they believe.

(No doubt we'll now see an argument that includes the phrase "Well if they're really a Scotsman, I mean theist, then by definition they believe..." )


If they do have a contradictory beliefs then by all means show them the contradictions.
All I ask is that you allow them to show you their contradictions in their own beliefs rather than just demanding they take the position you find easiest to knock down.

 

Errr... that's not what I said. I said if a natural being can be classified a god, then by what criteria do we say some natural beings are god, but not others?

 

I'm simply looking for a criteria for how to determine natural beings who are gods, from other natural being who are not gods. You cannot say god could be a natural beings and then not add criteria for how and why this natural being is a god, until you do so you left the door open for any natural being to be a god.

 

No, but I understand why people posit the supernatural god: to magically explain us, the universe and existence. That of course suffers from its own problems (which are of course magically explained away) however it is understandable why it is invoked/believed. However invoking a natural god is even worse for the natural god believer: it has all the same problems, but they cannot magic them away like the supernaturalist believer can, rendering the natural god both theologically and metaphysically useless! It makes no sense to try to salvage the idea of a creator only to end of with a watered down version with all the same problems! If you're gonna go to the trouble to invoke a god just go all the way and appeal to a supernatural one.

 

Again, this is not what I am requesting.

 

While mentality and willing are natural concepts, acusual mentality and acusual willing are not. 

 

Not necessarily. Most theists will make a claim, but not realise the logical ramifications of the claim. If deal with the logical ramifications of THEIR claim, and they reject that conclusion, it's not my fault. They need to understand that their own claims logically lead to.

 

I don't tell them that they have to believe. I tell them the logical ramifications of their own argument! If they claim is X and the conclusion is Y, then I tell them the conclusion is Y.

 

If its not what they believe then they need to actually think their arguments through!

 

Right. And what do you think the response will often be? "That's not what I believe" (!!). They don't *think* their belief is contradictory, so when you point out the contradiction, they accuse you of a straw man. But it isn't a straw man at all. So hopefully you see that them shouting straw man is necessarily the case.

 

They probably don't even think there is a contradiction to begin with. Furthermore, are you actually saying I should wait for them to show me the contradiction that they probably are not even aware of?! And if they are aware of it, why are they making a knowingly contradictory argument!

 

 

The response was we would simply be a part of this god-programmers universe/nature and therefore contingent on all the same things this 'god' is contingent on.

 

I think the point was to show that the arguments were not atheist arguments, but arguments from theists themselves. For example, saying something beyond nature would be incomprehensible to a natural being is not an atheist argument... it comes from the likes of St. Augustine. Saying reason is not involved with faith is not an atheist argument... it comes from the likes of Martin Luther. Both theists.

What about panentheism do you find completely incoherent, DG? Just curious.

 

By what criteria do we define a natural being? How accurate is it?

 

 

Possibly.

 

 

 

 

Itself.

 

 

It is not known that the universe arose through natural means, that assumes more than we can say is true about time and cause, as does the cosmological argument.

 

Any more arguments against a natural God?

 

 

A being that exists in the natural world, is by definition a natural being.

 

 

So you're invoking the existence of a natural god.... to explain the existence of this natural god?!

 

Until we have reason to invoke anything other than natural origins/causes, we shouldn't.

 

I must say most are so stuck in pointless god definitions, they are drowning or at best treading in dirty water.  That would include me .....

Well, here we are, trapped in the confused amber of this yet defined god of our moment wading in our past idiocy.  ((( thanks Eloise 

Get your wings. Dry out? A wise one walks above the water, but it's pouring from above! There is no escape, we are exactly god !       

 

Being = a living life.

In the natural world = in nature, our universe.

 

My point is you have no rational reason for invoking a god, natural or otherwise. Invoking it 'because you can' is not a rational justification - it's circular!

 

How do you define "natural being" then?

I never said it cannot be done, I said there was not rational justification for doing so.

But you have not rationally demonstrated that there is - you've merely assumed it!

You cannot just beg the question that there is a rational justification, and then used that begged question as a justification! 

I'm not saying this. Of course you can contemplate its existence, but there is a difference between contemplating its existence and saying that it exists. You cannot say it exists merely because you can contemplate its existence. Without a rational justification for doing so, you're not making an argument, you're begging the question.

But you've not demonstrated that it "just exists". Furthermore, why would you want to even posit a god that "just exists", and not that this god is responsible for anything? Why not just say a "blarb" exists? Blarb isn't responsible for anything, doesn't effect us, has no use relative to us, and is therefore effectively useless to us and might as well not even exist.

Never said this... what I did say was it would be a waste of time to posit such a being, just as it would be a wast of time to posit a blarb.

This looks like a subtle fallacy of composition to me. You're essentially saying there is not much difference between life and non-life (after all, we're all the "same thing", matter), therefore life/being isn't a meaningful distinction from non-life.

 

Can anyone explain why so many people screw up the concept of life without half a regard for any philosophical validation?  Life has been defined, quite clearly, for a very long time, and it necessarily, by definition, involves a discreet, organized, metabolizing, adapting, environmentally reactive, reproducing conglomeration of matter.

Energy is not life.  Energy is used by life to sustain itself.  Energy is also used by stars to produce new elements, but stars aren't alive.

Information is not life.  Information is information.

Information transfer is not life.  It is information transfer.

Do people not realize that IF they are going to use the word "life" to describe something that violates the real definition of life, they're going to have to say what the new definition is, and give (at the very least) a valid reason for calling it life when it is clearly not the same thing?

For instance, if one day, we encounter rocks that talk, we're going to have to account for how sentience could occur in something that by all scientific accounts, ought not be sentient.  Until then, doesn't it fall on the shoulders of the person using the word "life" to explain why that word is being used?

In describing any kind of non-material or non-organic non-reproducing, non-metabolizing form of existence, and calling it life, aren't theists making the same kind of error of incoherence as when they speak of immaterial?

 

I should have been more clear. Atoms, obviously, are the constituents of molecules, those being the constituents of supramolecular structures and so forth. If we took a biological organism and started paring it down to get to the bare essentials of what makes biological life, we would eventually get some sort of stripped down version of primitive autocatalysis in membranous vescicles by pre-pro-ribozymal molecules that were capable of guiding their own synthesis in the water. At the bare essential and basic definition of biological life, we come back to the notion that biology is defined by that fact that whatever "biological" entity under discussion is, it will have some sort of molecular basis for its own continuity. It's hard to see how we could define "biology" any other way. If you're going to ask me at what point in the slow 600 million year process of chemical evolution predating cellular life did the transition from "non-life" to "life" occured, I would reply it was the moment when the first pro-RNA was successful in using itself as a template holding the hereditary information to propogate its continued synthesis and the homogenous catalytic properties to catalyze the chemical reaction that allows this to occur. Before that, the original pre-pro-ribozymes would have in principle been able to serve as templates for the continuity of themselves, but without the catalytic property to induce this, it wouldn't have happened. And with this event, the first pre-replicative systems would have been able to form, allowing for natural selection, and therefore, for chemical evolution to kick off.

 

That's what I meant, what you said cannot be done is rationally justifying the existence of a natural God. I defy you that it can be done, and I say you assume far too much of what that rationalisation should entail.

 

No, I have just not agreed with you that the only rational justification for a natural God is to explain something else. You are special pleading the criteria for demonstrating an entity exists, you are saying because it's God there's no sense in showing it exists unless you are filling a hole in knowledge *with it* that's ridiculous, not knowing that it exists is already a hole in knowledge to fill. Why must I conjure up another one for you before you'll give me time of day on this?

 

This is what I am arguing Topher, I am rebutting your assertion that the question must be begged to be addressed. You seem to really wish it were necessary to beg the question and are attempting to argue that I have begged the question merely because you told me I'd be begging it before I responded.

I have said, God is natural and I will show you how this is coherent. But I haven't reached this conclusion by assuming a natural God, you have it backwards. I have asserted to you that God is natural not begged that God exists merely in order to argue how. It was your original post that posited that it is necessary for God to be invoked before being described and hopefully for the last time I am telling you that is not! But since it's already been invoked by this conversation allow me to describe it to you.

Frankly I think you are concentrating so heavily on this section of the discussion that you are not seeing how it connects to the rest of what I am saying, "itself" was not intended to be a stand alone point.

 

I hope you will see that my debate with you is what constitutes a rational justification for saying it exists. How is "it exists" not a rational justification for saying so?

 

That's not what this section is about. In this part of the conversation I am only arguing that something existing is a rational justification for showing that it exists - and there shouldn't need to be more justification than that simply because the subject is God.

 

This isn't really a "furthermore", this is the original point as far as I can see. Now I didn't say that God wasn't responsible for anything, I said that I don't need that as a justification for asserting it's existence. Your assumption that I do need it comes probably from the notion that there are no existing explanations for the phenomenal universe which imply anything like God, and I disagree with that. There are.

Well I can only say I wish you'd be more inclined to reserve your judgement there until you've heard the argument, but what can I do?

Okay, I did not imply the same thing ie:matter , what I said was the same thing ie: processes given to distinction only by the universal properties of cause and time and we should be considering the nature of both of those with much more care than so far we have done.

I don't think so, because "species" is a much more hazy concept than that of life. Obviously, I wasn't serious in suggesting there was an exact "moment" to the transition from non-life to life. Instead, it should be viewed as a primordial phase transition where the origination of self-replicative systems allowed for the accumulation of pre-biological polymers and hence for natural selection to act. However, if we are discussing the matter in strictly technical terms, I stand by the statement that the very first pre-RNA molecule with the capacity to catalyze its own partial templated polymerization does indeed qualify as the first real life form on this planet. Or, to extend your anology, consider a population which undergoes geographical seperation to form a clade. Although speciation is gradual, it follows that there must have been one precise moment in time where one single organism of population X was just different enough from one member of population Y that the two could not form a viable offspring, and that, strictly speaking, is the moment of speciation.

I like your explanation of abiogenesis/speciation, and I love your idea for a tshirt.

 

There is no need to define biology another way, the need is to recognise the context that one phrases the definition in. I'm not saying this isn't done by biologists everywhere, no disrespect intended, of course, any scientist worth his salt makes the effort to reduce the assumptions of the model and I have no doubt you are worth your salt, DG. What I am saying is that it's not done to the satisfaction of what we know whenever arbitrary demarcation of relationships in time or causality are asserted as fact. More than anything this is habit rather than explicit error. I mean, I am quite convinced that "I" is a nonsense term and pure superstition, but it's a communicative habit here and thus far more convenient to employ than any mode that is out of touch with the present human agreement regardless of how more accurate it might be.

 

Now in the definition you have stated: whatever "biological" entity under discussion is, it will have some sort of molecular basis for its own continuity: doesn't need much changing. except for 'basis' I would say it's close to perfect. Basis is an inappropriate word because any such thing is arbitrary and asserted for the sake of the model. This is a convenience arbitrated to serve limits of human capacity for objective thought, limits nature does not share, and that human sentience might not be purely restricted to.

 

The problem with this is it only makes sense if '600 million years past' is anything more than a mythological label invented to denote something we did not yet understand. Is it?

 

Well I personally don't believe it can be done (in so far as I don't believe we can rationally justify anything outside of our closed system/universe), but I'm more than willing to be refuted should a rational explanation be given.

 

 

I never said that this natural god explaining something is a rational justification - I said it wouldn't make it a complete waste of time to posit such a being. I don't know what the rational justification for positing this being because I'm yet to hear such an argument.

 

Because you essentially saying "it exists, therefore, it exists". This is circular! You've not actually given a any justification for why this being exists? You can't simply assert that it exist.

 

Well of course it's a tautology to say "if god exists, then god exists", however it has not been established that this thing exists to begin with, that's the point!

 

I never said this god being responsible for something would be the justification, I said it wouldn't make the idea completely useless.

Ah. I didn't realize we were talking about the problem of identity. In that case, I freely admit that the whole concept of distinct "objects" in the universe is arbitrary and there is no such thing as particular personal identity of any one "object" removed from the context of the rest of the physical universe that object inhabits. As such, I would be the first to freely confess that when I point to this thing on my "desk" that I designate a "book" I am making what is ultimately a meaningless demarcation, because this supposed object is constantly changing. The question "Is that book at t1 the same book as at t2?" is a meaningless question because what it requires us to make a meaningless and arbitrary designation of what the book is. We might consider concepts like "emergent identity" where objects emerge as distinguishable things when examined in a large enough scope, but that merely begs the question since we are making the same arbitrary demarcation of where we should start looking at it.

Some people take this concept and make vague gestures towards notions like "we are all one" etc. (cue "circle of life" song). What is my consideration of such a statement. The answer is: "Stupid hippy crap". The observation made about identity is a very simple philosophical observation, which can no more be used to justify meaningless statements than quantum mechanics can be used to justify telepathy.

"Circular" - God doesn't exist because no complete definition of god exists, but on the other hand, what isn't god ? Geezzz , now what to do with the G-O-D thing ?  

      

    

 

Fair enough.

(For those who had no idea what was just said, the momentum operator is usually given as (del)(h-bar/i). That probably didn't help at all in terms of explaining it, but this subject isn't exactly transparent).

EDIT:

How did we end up talking about this?

"How did we end up talking about this?"  ~ DG 

     Because we are stardust !  .....    

Personal opinion:

This is why God has been stuck in QM in modern times. Quantum physics is, right now, the least accessible of sciences. There is no 'laymans guide to QM'; it's a field reserved for those with real expertise (not maliciously in any way, of course - it's simply the nature of such a complex field). So, in this space, theists find themselves psuedo-untouchable to the standard philosophical arguments. If someone argues, they just throw some QM equations out there that very few people could interpret and call it a day.

Consider, Eloise, the exchange we just recently had. Why did I get stuck? I'm a layman; I'm not retarded. Why couldn't you explain your conceptualization in an abstraction that I would understand? Why can't it be boiled down into it's components that have application, and then be distributed to a wider audience?

 

Okay, I believe it's entirely possible to have meaningful dialogue that way and I'll take you up on that, only not today because I'm using identities already in this conversation. (Thought about launching straight into it but reconsidered that steering us off without warning and then refusing to speak your language for the rest of the day would just result in losing your interest quickly and I didn't want that.)

 

I agree that the incoherence of identity isn't really a violation of the law of identity, the law doesn't get violated in it's system. I'm only saying that one can violate the law and still be talking about reality in another coherent system and if we only view that as a big inconvenience for philosophy in order to reject it we might be ripping ourselves off a bit.

 

concede. It's not a dichotomy. However, *I* didn't make it that way. This is drawn up generally as a dichotomy because of those infinities of interaction which land us with no sensible way to gather data on the in between levels. If we could get that data and study it we could use it to draw a continuous ontology between the two, because, so far, no way around the infinities has lead to a complete solution, we're left with this dilemma of choosing a side.

 

 

Why don't I? The argument is being waged in a system which is no less arbitrary in terms of the subject. I mean, if we were talking about Sunday brunch, OK, let's not invoke a quantum universe to decide what we're eating but fair go, Hamby, this is a discussion about the origins and nature of the universe!

 

It's a compliment any way you intend it, that was kind, hope you enjoyed your lunch.

 

It's my fault, I've kind of hijacked Tophers topic, Sorry Topher.

To help with the explanation, the momentum operator is one way to represent the wave in wave- particle duality, to get the position for a quantum bit you flip it and vice versa. But once the numbers of quantum bits gets even a little bit large basically you run out of space for the results. So we have the collapse postulate which says, don't deal with the infinities, heuristically suppose that at some point in there the wave flat-lines because if it didn't then the world wouldn't look like it does from up here in the macroscopic realm.

I assumed, I hope correctly, that Hamby knows how to integrate a function, yes? and the momentum operator I should have mentioned as DG did is just p=angular-momentum(h-bar).direction(i) which represents the base rate of interaction potential and the integral p.dx is just p.x, you simply throw the number of interactions into the mix and calculate.

But anyhow, it's not difficult math really but maybe I was, as DG said, not transparent enough in what I said.

 

 

congratulations

 

Thanks. I knew some people would understand what I meant....

 

 

Ditto.