"God" is a tyrant.

[Czernobog]

You see, Ding thinks he has done something unique, and special by presenting his teleological argument. He hasn't. The thing is, to my knowledge, very few cosmology scholars make this argument. They almost all, invariably, at Christian, or Muslim. This is because there are a few glaring flaws with the teleological argument.

Can you show me one cosmologist or physicist who stated that the laws of nature were NOT in place before space and time were created? Because I have yet to find one.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

 

[ding]

1) It employs an logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance occurs when debater (A) claims that his opponent (B) doesn’t know the answer but (A) claims to know the answer, therefore A is right. In this case, scientists do not know what occurred prior to the Big Bang, Christians claim that God made it happen, so Christians are "right". It sounds great, but it's based on flawed logic. To demonstrate the flaw of the logic, replace God with anything you like, from Invisible Space monkeys, to the popular Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the formula still works. Thus, while it sounds good, it is a useless argument.Now, this would be a good time to mention that just because there are aspects of natural law that we do not yet understand, "God did it" is never a sufficient response. That is relying on a concept known as "The God of the Gaps". We no longer need Apollo to explain why the Sun moves across the sky, or Demeter to explain the seasons. We no longer need Thor to explain thunder. The "God of the Gaps" is asymptotically approaching zero.

Actually all I stated was that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Beyond that is a philosophical argument that all scientists acknowledge. Towards that I have defined the attributes of what was responsible for creating the laws of nature which brought time and space into existence. Those attributes are; eternal and constant. The only solution I have found is consciousness; intelligence. And since it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and since we know from the laws of nature that the universe has become self aware and produced consciousness, it is entirely reasonable to believe that consciousness begot consciousness. How is this a useless argument? How is this an unreasonable argument? Do you have a better argument for why the universe became self aware?

 

[ding]

2) Aside from the logical flaw, there is a problem of the nature of God. You'll notice that Ding likes to refer to the "Primary Mover", or the "First Cause". At best, this is an argument for deism , not theism. It argues for an intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. There is nothing in the "First Cause" argument that demonstrates any sort of continued interest in humanity.

You are free to label it anyway you want, but it is a misstatement to say that I believe that intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. Far from it. Consciousness is evolving because there are natural moral laws just like there are natural physical laws. We are being pruned. Cause and effect, behavior and consequence all play a part in this process.

 

[ding]

3) The argument also relies on another logical fallacy called "special pleading". The argument insists that anything so complex, and intricate as the universe demands that it have a creator. Okay. However, logic demands that any creator of something so complex, and intricate must be more complex, intricate, and of sufficient intelligence, and creativity to create such a universe, and must, therefore, have, itself, a creator. Ding, and other Teleologists want to argue "special pleading" - God is capable of self creation, while, for some reason, the universe is not.

Actually I have not made this argument at all. What I have said is that matter has evolved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state; a simple state to a complex state. Up to and including consciousness where the universe became self aware. And like the other phases before it, consciousness is evolving. All of which have been controlled by the laws of nature, physical and moral, which existed before space and time.

 

[Czernobog]

1) It employs an logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance occurs when debater (A) claims that his opponent (B) doesn’t know the answer but (A) claims to know the answer, therefore A is right. In this case, scientists do not know what occurred prior to the Big Bang, Christians claim that God made it happen, so Christians are "right". It sounds great, but it's based on flawed logic. To demonstrate the flaw of the logic, replace God with anything you like, from Invisible Space monkeys, to the popular Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the formula still works. Thus, while it sounds good, it is a useless argument.Now, this would be a good time to mention that just because there are aspects of natural law that we do not yet understand, "God did it" is never a sufficient response. That is relying on a concept known as "The God of the Gaps". We no longer need Apollo to explain why the Sun moves across the sky, or Demeter to explain the seasons. We no longer need Thor to explain thunder. The "God of the Gaps" is asymptotically approaching zero.

Actually all I stated was that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Beyond that is a philosophical argument that all scientists acknowledge. Towards that I have defined the attributes of what was responsible for creating the laws of nature which brought time and space into existence. Those attributes are; eternal and constant. The only solution I have found is consciousness; intelligence. And since it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and since we know from the laws of nature that the universe has become self aware and produced consciousness, it is entirely reasonable to believe that consciousness begot consciousness. How is this a useless argument? How is this an unreasonable argument? Do you have a better argument for why the universe became self aware?

I would first ask you to prove that the universe is self-aware. Not that humans are self-aware, but that the entire universe is self-aware. That seems like a pretty big presumption.

 

[ding]

4) The final problem with the teleological argument is one that no one has thought to ask Ding. Why? Why did God go to all of the trouble of creating this vast, complicated universe? What was its purpose? What was its goal? I rather suspect that, if asked, we would be surprised to learn just how arrogant, and egotistical his answer would be.

Because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. I don't even know if He had a choice in the matter.

 

[Czernobog]

2) Aside from the logical flaw, there is a problem of the nature of God. You'll notice that Ding likes to refer to the "Primary Mover", or the "First Cause". At best, this is an argument for deism , not theism. It argues for an intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. There is nothing in the "First Cause" argument that demonstrates any sort of continued interest in humanity.

You are free to label it anyway you want, but it is a misstatement to say that I believe that intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. Far from it. Consciousness is evolving because there are natural moral laws just like there are natural physical laws. We are being pruned. Cause and effect, behavior and consequence all play a part in this process.

Oh! What you believe, and what your claims support are two very different things. You may well be a theist - a Christian, even. However, your "First Cause" model of creator is a far cry from a theistic model of God.

 

[Czernobog]

4) The final problem with the teleological argument is one that no one has thought to ask Ding. Why? Why did God go to all of the trouble of creating this vast, complicated universe? What was its purpose? What was its goal? I rather suspect that, if asked, we would be surprised to learn just how arrogant, and egotistical his answer would be.

Because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. I don't even know if He had a choice in the matter.

So, you are suggesting that the entire purpose of the whole universe is us?

 

[ding]

Now, some of these problems - particularly point three - Ding will attempt to overcome by pointing out that God doesn't have to follow the rules that the universe does, because the universe is bound by the physical laws of nature, but God is supernatural, and beyond such limitations. But, do you see the problem there? He just spent all of this time pretending to employ "science" to "prove" the existence of a thing that he fully admits exists in a realm that is utterly beyond the ability of science to even recognise, let alone accurately test, confirm, and prove.

Hence the utter demise of Ding's argument.

Other than to state the attributes which must exist for the first cause, I don't believe I have done any such thing. But what you HAVE just proven is the idiocracy of your position to demand proof of the supernatural.

 

[ding]

1) It employs an logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance occurs when debater (A) claims that his opponent (B) doesn’t know the answer but (A) claims to know the answer, therefore A is right. In this case, scientists do not know what occurred prior to the Big Bang, Christians claim that God made it happen, so Christians are "right". It sounds great, but it's based on flawed logic. To demonstrate the flaw of the logic, replace God with anything you like, from Invisible Space monkeys, to the popular Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the formula still works. Thus, while it sounds good, it is a useless argument.Now, this would be a good time to mention that just because there are aspects of natural law that we do not yet understand, "God did it" is never a sufficient response. That is relying on a concept known as "The God of the Gaps". We no longer need Apollo to explain why the Sun moves across the sky, or Demeter to explain the seasons. We no longer need Thor to explain thunder. The "God of the Gaps" is asymptotically approaching zero.

Actually all I stated was that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Beyond that is a philosophical argument that all scientists acknowledge. Towards that I have defined the attributes of what was responsible for creating the laws of nature which brought time and space into existence. Those attributes are; eternal and constant. The only solution I have found is consciousness; intelligence. And since it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and since we know from the laws of nature that the universe has become self aware and produced consciousness, it is entirely reasonable to believe that consciousness begot consciousness. How is this a useless argument? How is this an unreasonable argument? Do you have a better argument for why the universe became self aware?

I would first ask you to prove that the universe is self-aware. Not that humans are self-aware, but that the entire universe is self-aware. That seems like a pretty big presumption.

The entire universe does not need to be self aware for the universe to become self aware. Just like any other process on earth, the final product is not the sum of the raw material. In fact, we can look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which proves that for every transfer between mass and energy there will be a loss of usable energy. So it would be illogical for you to assume every single piece of matter and energy must be self aware before you admit the self evident fact that the universe has become self aware. The fact we are having this conversation in the first place should be all the proof you need. You do realize that the energy and matter that make up who we are was created over 14 billion years ago, right? Since that time it has only changed form until the point that we are sitting at our computers typing these replies.

 

[Czernobog]

Now, some of these problems - particularly point three - Ding will attempt to overcome by pointing out that God doesn't have to follow the rules that the universe does, because the universe is bound by the physical laws of nature, but God is supernatural, and beyond such limitations. But, do you see the problem there? He just spent all of this time pretending to employ "science" to "prove" the existence of a thing that he fully admits exists in a realm that is utterly beyond the ability of science to even recognise, let alone accurately test, confirm, and prove.

Hence the utter demise of Ding's argument.

Other than to state the attributes which must exist for the first cause, I don't believe I have done any such thing. But what you HAVE just proven is the idiocracy of your position to demand proof of the supernatural.

Oh, then I apologise. I then argue with nothing you have said - with the possibility that the laws of nature existed before the universe. I have not heard that, and it seems counter-intuitive to me. But, the rest is exactly what has happened. So long as you do not try to ascribe any of that to some imaginary God, then we are on the same page.

 

[ding]

You see, Ding thinks he has done something unique, and special by presenting his teleological argument. He hasn't. The thing is, to my knowledge, very few cosmology scholars make this argument. They almost all, invariably, at Christian, or Muslim. This is because there are a few glaring flaws with the teleological argument.

Can you show me one cosmologist or physicist who stated that the laws of nature were NOT in place before space and time were created? Because I have yet to find one.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

 

[ding]

2) Aside from the logical flaw, there is a problem of the nature of God. You'll notice that Ding likes to refer to the "Primary Mover", or the "First Cause". At best, this is an argument for deism , not theism. It argues for an intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. There is nothing in the "First Cause" argument that demonstrates any sort of continued interest in humanity.

You are free to label it anyway you want, but it is a misstatement to say that I believe that intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. Far from it. Consciousness is evolving because there are natural moral laws just like there are natural physical laws. We are being pruned. Cause and effect, behavior and consequence all play a part in this process.

Oh! What you believe, and what your claims support are two very different things. You may well be a theist - a Christian, even. However, your "First Cause" model of creator is a far cry from a theistic model of God.

According to you, but what do you know?

 

[Czernobog]

1) It employs an logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance occurs when debater (A) claims that his opponent (B) doesn’t know the answer but (A) claims to know the answer, therefore A is right. In this case, scientists do not know what occurred prior to the Big Bang, Christians claim that God made it happen, so Christians are "right". It sounds great, but it's based on flawed logic. To demonstrate the flaw of the logic, replace God with anything you like, from Invisible Space monkeys, to the popular Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the formula still works. Thus, while it sounds good, it is a useless argument.Now, this would be a good time to mention that just because there are aspects of natural law that we do not yet understand, "God did it" is never a sufficient response. That is relying on a concept known as "The God of the Gaps". We no longer need Apollo to explain why the Sun moves across the sky, or Demeter to explain the seasons. We no longer need Thor to explain thunder. The "God of the Gaps" is asymptotically approaching zero.

Actually all I stated was that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Beyond that is a philosophical argument that all scientists acknowledge. Towards that I have defined the attributes of what was responsible for creating the laws of nature which brought time and space into existence. Those attributes are; eternal and constant. The only solution I have found is consciousness; intelligence. And since it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and since we know from the laws of nature that the universe has become self aware and produced consciousness, it is entirely reasonable to believe that consciousness begot consciousness. How is this a useless argument? How is this an unreasonable argument? Do you have a better argument for why the universe became self aware?

I would first ask you to prove that the universe is self-aware. Not that humans are self-aware, but that the entire universe is self-aware. That seems like a pretty big presumption.

The entire universe does not need to be self aware for the universe to become self aware. Just like any other process on earth, the final product is not the sum of the raw material. In fact, we can look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which proves that for every transfer between mass and energy there will be a loss of usable energy. So it would be illogical for you to assume every single piece of matter and energy must be self aware before you admit the self evident fact that the universe has become self aware. The fact we are having this conversation in the first place should be all the proof you need. You do realize that the energy and matter that make up who we are was created over 14 billion years ago, right? Since that time it has only changed form until the point that we are sitting at our computers typing these replies.

No, it isn't. You do not represent the universe, whatever your overinflated ego might tell you. You are one insignificant speck of instantaneous dust winking into, and out of existence, in an insignificant little corner of the universe that no one will ever even realise was there, once you have winked out of existence. You give yourself, and even all of humanity way too much significance. Our achieving self-awareness in no way suggests "the universe" is self-aware. That is hubris of the worst kind.

 

[Czernobog]

You see, Ding thinks he has done something unique, and special by presenting his teleological argument. He hasn't. The thing is, to my knowledge, very few cosmology scholars make this argument. They almost all, invariably, at Christian, or Muslim. This is because there are a few glaring flaws with the teleological argument.

Can you show me one cosmologist or physicist who stated that the laws of nature were NOT in place before space and time were created? Because I have yet to find one.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

 

[ding]

4) The final problem with the teleological argument is one that no one has thought to ask Ding. Why? Why did God go to all of the trouble of creating this vast, complicated universe? What was its purpose? What was its goal? I rather suspect that, if asked, we would be surprised to learn just how arrogant, and egotistical his answer would be.

Because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. I don't even know if He had a choice in the matter.

So, you are suggesting that the entire purpose of the whole universe is us?

No. I am claiming the purpose of the universe is what comes after consciousness makes the next evolutionary leap.

 

[ding]

Now, some of these problems - particularly point three - Ding will attempt to overcome by pointing out that God doesn't have to follow the rules that the universe does, because the universe is bound by the physical laws of nature, but God is supernatural, and beyond such limitations. But, do you see the problem there? He just spent all of this time pretending to employ "science" to "prove" the existence of a thing that he fully admits exists in a realm that is utterly beyond the ability of science to even recognise, let alone accurately test, confirm, and prove.

Hence the utter demise of Ding's argument.

Other than to state the attributes which must exist for the first cause, I don't believe I have done any such thing. But what you HAVE just proven is the idiocracy of your position to demand proof of the supernatural.

Oh, then I apologise. I then argue with nothing you have said - with the possibility that the laws of nature existed before the universe. I have not heard that, and it seems counter-intuitive to me. But, the rest is exactly what has happened. So long as you do not try to ascribe any of that to some imaginary God, then we are on the same page.

I do ascribe it to God. God is existence; truth; intelligence; reality; consciousness. God is more like a verb than a noun.

 

[Czernobog]

2) Aside from the logical flaw, there is a problem of the nature of God. You'll notice that Ding likes to refer to the "Primary Mover", or the "First Cause". At best, this is an argument for deism , not theism. It argues for an intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. There is nothing in the "First Cause" argument that demonstrates any sort of continued interest in humanity.

You are free to label it anyway you want, but it is a misstatement to say that I believe that intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. Far from it. Consciousness is evolving because there are natural moral laws just like there are natural physical laws. We are being pruned. Cause and effect, behavior and consequence all play a part in this process.

Oh! What you believe, and what your claims support are two very different things. You may well be a theist - a Christian, even. However, your "First Cause" model of creator is a far cry from a theistic model of God.

According to you, but what do you know?

Not just according to me. Also according to Austin Cline, who said so in their article Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God . I'm sorry your argument falls short of the mark.

 

[Czernobog]

4) The final problem with the teleological argument is one that no one has thought to ask Ding. Why? Why did God go to all of the trouble of creating this vast, complicated universe? What was its purpose? What was its goal? I rather suspect that, if asked, we would be surprised to learn just how arrogant, and egotistical his answer would be.

Because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. I don't even know if He had a choice in the matter.

So, you are suggesting that the entire purpose of the whole universe is us?

No. I am claiming the purpose of the universe is what comes after consciousness makes the next evolutionary leap.

What the fuck is that supposed to even mean?

 

[Czernobog]

Now, some of these problems - particularly point three - Ding will attempt to overcome by pointing out that God doesn't have to follow the rules that the universe does, because the universe is bound by the physical laws of nature, but God is supernatural, and beyond such limitations. But, do you see the problem there? He just spent all of this time pretending to employ "science" to "prove" the existence of a thing that he fully admits exists in a realm that is utterly beyond the ability of science to even recognise, let alone accurately test, confirm, and prove.

Hence the utter demise of Ding's argument.

Other than to state the attributes which must exist for the first cause, I don't believe I have done any such thing. But what you HAVE just proven is the idiocracy of your position to demand proof of the supernatural.

Oh, then I apologise. I then argue with nothing you have said - with the possibility that the laws of nature existed before the universe. I have not heard that, and it seems counter-intuitive to me. But, the rest is exactly what has happened. So long as you do not try to ascribe any of that to some imaginary God, then we are on the same page.

I do ascribe it to God. God is existence; truth; intelligence; reality; consciousness. God is more like a verb than a noun.

Which leads us right back around to your argument from ignorance. I ascribe it to Invisible Space Monkeys. Or The Giant Spaghetti Monster. There is just as much evidence of either of those being responsible.

This is why the teleological argument always falls apart. It relies on logical fallacies for its foundations.