Does God want us to judge him?

[ding]

Nope. A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding her tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take more seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I guess the real question to you is have you ever even seriously considered whether it is possible for something like a mind without a body to create the material world?

I know. Tough question, right?

I don’t care about your personal opinion. Anything could have happened.

Yes, that is my point. Anything could have happened, but anything will reduce down to either spirit created the material world or the material world created spirit. This is the fundamental question you are seeking an answer for, right?

That's why I asked you if you had ever even seriously considered whether it is possible for something like a mind without a body to create the material world. Well... have you?

 

[Taz]

I guess the real question to you is have you ever even seriously considered whether it is possible for something like a mind without a body to create the material world?

I know. Tough question, right?

I don’t care about your personal opinion. Anything could have happened.

Yes, that is my point. Anything could have happened, but anything will reduce down to either spirit created the material world or the material world created spirit. This is the fundamental question you are seeking an answer for, right?

That's why I asked you if you had ever even seriously considered whether it is possible for something like a mind without a body to create the material world. Well... have you?

You’re an idiot, go make something else up.

 

[ding]

I guess the real question to you is have you ever even seriously considered whether it is possible for something like a mind without a body to create the material world?

I know. Tough question, right?

I don’t care about your personal opinion. Anything could have happened.

Yes, that is my point. Anything could have happened, but anything will reduce down to either spirit created the material world or the material world created spirit. This is the fundamental question you are seeking an answer for, right?

That's why I asked you if you had ever even seriously considered whether it is possible for something like a mind without a body to create the material world. Well... have you?

You’re an idiot, go make something else up.

^ dunning effect

So does that mean you haven't seriously considered the possibility that spirit created the material world?

 

[Taz]

I know. Tough question, right?

I don’t care about your personal opinion. Anything could have happened.

Yes, that is my point. Anything could have happened, but anything will reduce down to either spirit created the material world or the material world created spirit. This is the fundamental question you are seeking an answer for, right?

That's why I asked you if you had ever even seriously considered whether it is possible for something like a mind without a body to create the material world. Well... have you?

You’re an idiot, go make something else up.

^ dunning effect

So does that mean you haven't seriously considered the possibility that spirit created the material world?

Not seriously. There’s no proof.

 

[ding]

I know. Tough question, right?

I don’t care about your personal opinion. Anything could have happened.

Yes, that is my point. Anything could have happened, but anything will reduce down to either spirit created the material world or the material world created spirit. This is the fundamental question you are seeking an answer for, right?

That's why I asked you if you had ever even seriously considered whether it is possible for something like a mind without a body to create the material world. Well... have you?

You’re an idiot, go make something else up.

^ dunning effect

So does that mean you haven't seriously considered the possibility that spirit created the material world?

Not seriously. There’s no proof.

I just gave you proof. Scientific no less. Space and time were created from no thing. 6,000 years ago ancient man knew that space and time were created from no thing and that man is a product of that creation.

You did say anything can happen, right?

Well shouldn't you be investigating it?

 

[ding]

Usually when I go fishing I make an effort to actually catch a fish.

I don't wait for the fish to jump into the boat and filet itself.

Yeesh... talk about magical thinking.

 

[Hollie]

It's not a link to what you claim. EPIC FAIL. AGAIN.

Sure it is. It is a scientific paper on inflation. Inflation says space and time were created from nothing.

You suck at this. Please get a clue.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

Personal opinion. Yawn.

Nope. A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding her tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take more seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

The is no logical argument for supernaturalism.

 

[ding]

Sure it is. It is a scientific paper on inflation. Inflation says space and time were created from nothing.

You suck at this. Please get a clue.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

Personal opinion. Yawn.

Nope. A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding her tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take more seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

The is no logical argument for supernaturalism.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

 

[Taz]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

 

[ding]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

I wrote it.

Whether they read it or not is of no concern to me, but it is to you.

edit: I wrote it with the help of all of my atheist friends on USMB. I couldn't have done it without you.

 

[Taz]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

I wrote it.

Whether they read it or not is of no concern to me, but it is to you.

edit: I wrote it with the help of all of my atheist friends on USMB. I couldn't have done it without you.

You can’t even be honest about copying something. You have no honour.

 

[ding]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

I wrote it.

Whether they read it or not is of no concern to me, but it is to you.

edit: I wrote it with the help of all of my atheist friends on USMB. I couldn't have done it without you.

You can’t even be honest about copying something. You have no honour.

I wrote it for a bull ring discussion. I always save my best for that arena. Now I can use it here every single day.

You and I are going to have so much fun having deep discussions on whether spirit created the material world.

 

[ding]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

I wrote it.

Whether they read it or not is of no concern to me, but it is to you.

edit: I wrote it with the help of all of my atheist friends on USMB. I couldn't have done it without you.

You can’t even be honest about copying something. You have no honour.

You spelled honor like a Brit.

 

[ding]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

I wrote it.

Whether they read it or not is of no concern to me, but it is to you.

edit: I wrote it with the help of all of my atheist friends on USMB. I couldn't have done it without you.

You can’t even be honest about copying something. You have no honour.

Seriously though, you guys really did play a role in creating my response. Now you are going to play a role in my spreading of it.

 

[Hollie]

You suck at this. Please get a clue.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

Personal opinion. Yawn.

Nope. A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding her tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take more seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

The is no logical argument for supernaturalism.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

That long cut and paste is rather odd as you are attempting to make a case for magic and supernaturalism with references to the natural world. There is nothing in the natural world that has been shown to have supernatural or magic as its cause.

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena. Religion is amenable only to supernatural phenomena. This is the philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its supernaturally bounded nature.

There's no reason not to conclude that existence could simply be an ongoing process infinite in both directions. BTW, this is a naturalistic explanation for something religionists are quite content to accept supernaturally, i.e., that their gods exist as an infinity. So there's nothing about the naturalistic paradigm that the religionist doesn't already embrace. There is no evidence though that requires one to add sentience and other anthropomorphic attributes to the infinite nature of nature. Therefore, the theistic worldview unnecessarily complicates a simple concept in order to assign the infinite nature with a quasi-comforting personality.

It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it's possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely natural cause but that still wouldn't prove a supernatural causation and it still wouldn't prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims to magic and supernaturalism? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and demand they be accountable at some level?

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men ascend golden staircases to heaven?

Suppose life exists elsewhere? That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as "creation" is uniquely an earthly event. Although, you and I both know that some obscure Bible verse would eventually be "discovered" as describing the event. Ah, see, science "proving" the religious texts. Send a probe to Mars, and prove life developed off the planet Earth. This we are doing. What theists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, gods only know.

 

[Hollie]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

I wrote it.

Whether they read it or not is of no concern to me, but it is to you.

edit: I wrote it with the help of all of my atheist friends on USMB. I couldn't have done it without you.

You can’t even be honest about copying something. You have no honour.

Seriously though, you guys really did play a role in creating my response. Now you are going to play a role in my spreading of it.

I'm sure you don't at all understand the negative affects of belligerent Bible thumping.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

I wrote it.

Whether they read it or not is of no concern to me, but it is to you.

edit: I wrote it with the help of all of my atheist friends on USMB. I couldn't have done it without you.

You can’t even be honest about copying something. You have no honour.

Seriously though, you guys really did play a role in creating my response. Now you are going to play a role in my spreading of it.

I'm sure you don't at all understand the negative affects of belligerent Bible thumping.

Threatening people with eternal and earthly suffering if they don't accept a specific set of magical beliefs is belligerent, immoral, unethical, and just plain evil.

This is what adults are using to brainwash children. That is sick.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Does God want us to judge him?


I think that God wants us to judge him. We are to emulate Jesus. Jesus judged God and found him wanting.


Upon taking the judgement seat, Jesus indicated that it was time to retire Yahweh. Jesus saw Yahweh as no longer fit to rule over or judge man. Man had in essence graduated to his rightful place as the judge of all the Gods.


Christians, who are told by their own scriptures to judge righteously, are not doing so when it comes to Yahweh.


1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.


Yahweh is quite a vile God. It is no wonder that Yahweh does not show his face around Christians. They would kill him. Jesus did say that he came to bring War. Perhaps he meant war against God, which would be following Jewish tradition.


If God wants us to judge him, why do most Christians not judge God in a righteous and moral manner?


Place no God above me, means that God wants us to judge all the Gods, including himself, to insure he is the best of the best. How else could we know that Yahweh was the best God to follow?


Do you agree, or are we not supposed to judge God?


Regards

DL

The one vors Jesus was the YHWH of the OT.
He said He CAME TO REVEAL THE FATHER.
.I judge you and find you wanting. Now, get the behind me Satan!

 

[ding]

^ logical argument for spirit creating the material world

Nobody’s going to read that load of crap. Where did you steal it from?

I wrote it.

Whether they read it or not is of no concern to me, but it is to you.

edit: I wrote it with the help of all of my atheist friends on USMB. I couldn't have done it without you.

You can’t even be honest about copying something. You have no honour.

Seriously though, you guys really did play a role in creating my response. Now you are going to play a role in my spreading of it.

I'm sure you don't at all understand the negative affects of belligerent Bible thumping.

I understand there is a distribution for everything. And in that distribution adherents do all kinds of things. But by any objective measure Christianity has been a force for good. For instance, Christians created wonderful charities and organizations. Spreading the Good Word is part of our Theology. You arguing against my theology is effectively proselytizing the Jewish theology of not proselytizing