Subjective Evidence of Gods

I would certainly contribute to such a thread. Starting from your first point (which I raised with GDR some time back) that "God" cannot be the answer, because God is "something".

quote:

---

Not really. I think that when the question it asks it is referring to our material world. Why do we exist - why do atoms exist - why does the universe exist - why does sentience or wisdom exist etc. The term "something" does not IMHO refer to anything that might or might not exist outside of time, space and matter

---

In other words you assume a special meaning that is awfully convenient to you - and seems to have nothing else to recommend it. Any reason to think that "something" doesn't just mean "something" ?

quote:

---

Yes and no. In saying this you are ruling out any explanation that includes a pre-existent intelligence making the whole discussion moot. Also in saying that you are limiting any pre-existent intelligence to something that experiences "change" in the same way, and the same order as we do.

---

I have no idea how you come to such a reading.

quote:

---

It is the same thing as trying to wrap our minds around the concept of infinity.

---

That does not seem to make much sense either.It seems that your argument is based on special pleading - exempting God from the requirement for explanation by choosing idisyncratic definitions and complaining that expecting such an explanation is equivalent to ruling out the possibility of God a priori.

quote:

---

I guess it all depends on how you want to phrase the discussion. Yes I agree that if god(s) exist it constitutes something, in somewhat the same way that wisdom constitutes something.

---

Do you mean that God is an abstract entity ? That doesn't seem to fit.

quote:

---

I think that essentially the discussion then is, "does some intelligent something exist outside of our material world that is responsible for our existence".

---

Well that isn't the question "why is there something rather than nothing", nor even a potential answer to it. It isn't even the question "is there a God" since it might be the case that lesser, natural, intelligences could take actions that would result in the existence of a new universe.

quote:

---

I understand Dr A as saying that if I am going to suggest that we exist as the result of some external intelligence that I also have to account for the creation of that intelligence. All I'm saying is that in that question he presupposes that this creative intelligence would have to experience change, (what we call time), in the same way that we do.

---

Your "understanding" seems to bear no resemblance to anything Dr. A. said. Indeed I would suggest that it would be much fairer to say that the whole idea of an "intelligence" and the act of "creation" presuppose that. Thus if such an idea is to be found anywhere in this discussion, it is inherent in your position.

quote:

---

I agree it is special pleading. If I can't evoke a creator without having to answer for the creation of the creator then I have nothing to offer. When asked the question all I can honestly say is I don't know. The only possible partial answer is that the time that we experience is part of this creation and so we would thus require an intelligence outside of our 4D universe to be its creator.

---

In short you have NO answer to the question of "why is there something rather than nothing", without reinterpreting the question to allow special pleading that favours the answer you want to give. Under those circumstances I have to say that I find it intellectually dishonest of you to raise the question as if you had a genuine answer.

quote:

---

I agree it's far from a perfect comparison. My only point is that both exist, IMHO, as something that can't be observed by human senses.

---

In other words your "comparison" was completely invalid, God does not exist in the same way that "wisdom" does, at all.

quote:

---

OK, fair enough but all I'm trying to do is frame the question in a way that satisfies you. Instead of just critiquing what I say, why don't you tell me how you would frame the question?

---

Presumably you mean your "question". I would phrase it as a statement. "God exists because GDR really likes the idea", which is at least honest.

quote:

---

Well I think I did understand what Dr. A was saying, but I do agree that last statement.

---

Given the complete lack of any connection between your "understanding" and what Dr. A. wrote, it seems clear that you did not.

quote:

---

It depends on what constitutes an answer. There is no answer to the question that can be shown to be true empirically. We can only offer our subjective opinions. I stated the answer to the question is objectively unknowable but I did offer a possible explanation that I have come to subjectively that you seem to reject because there is no objective evidence for it.

---

Well, no you DON'T have an answer to the actual question of why there is something rather than nothing, and you admit as much. Indeed, the whole point of reinterpreting the question in your idiosyncratic way is to avoid having to give a genuine answer.

quote:

---

Wow, so you think it's dishonest for someone to share His opinion?

---

No. I claim that GDR was intellectually dishonest because he relied on a private and far from obvious interpretation of the question "why is there something rather than nothing" that was rigged to favour the answer he wanted, when he claimed to have an answer. In fact he does not have an answer to the question as it is written and naturally interpreted.Which fits your description of intellectual dishonesty.So, are you going to retract your false accusations and apologise ?

quote:

---

Your delusional. Would you like me to bow to you also?

---

I realise that expecting honesty from a "Christian" is somewhat optimistic, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

quote:

---

Apologise for? How do you get away with the crap you talk here? Calling people "intellectually dishonest" for answering questions according to how they see it and believe it to be somehow is dishonest in your eyes making YOUR opinion the ONLY right one?

---

Of course I never did any such.

quote:

---

Are you following along PaulK? Who do you think owes an apology to who while were at it?
Really I wouldn't ever ask for an apology on a debate site since everyone could be apologising all day long.

---

If your idea if debate is slandering each other that might be true. And it does seem to be your approach, but it is not one favoured here.

quote:

---

I SURE wouldn't be asking for an apology from someone who called me out on calling someone else "intellectually dishonest" because of an opinion they shared.

---

Neither would I. Now, do you intend to deal honestly with what I actually said or just continue with your slanders ?

quote:

---

Part of the problem is that IMHO you see this as a debate whereas I enjoy a discussion like I was having with Straggler.

---

I don't think that excuses misrepresenting the question, nor the special pleading.

quote:

---

I'll go with this then.

​

"Why is there something instead of nothing".

​

Because there is/was a creative intelligence as a prime mover.

---

But that isn't an answer to the question as written, because the "creative intelligence" is something.

quote:

---

I think that is the most reasonable answer because IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that intelligence can evolve from a non-intelligent source

---

The evidence seems to be against you, there (intelligence is a continuum, which seems to have increased gradually, in fits and starts over evolutionary history). Moreover, an intelligence is a complex ordered entity that begs for explanation - but you want to avoid explaining it....

quote:

---

I think that is the most reasonable answer because IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that love and altruism can evolve from a non-loving, non-altruistic source.

---

I don't think that you have much evidence there, either. And how is it reasonable to assume a loving, altruistic intelligent force without any explanation of how it could come to exist ?

quote:

---

I think that is the most reasonable answer because a living cell is an incredibly complex thing and is IMHO highly unlikely to have come into existence without prior wisdom and creativity.

---

And modern cells are the product of billions of years of evolution. But what explanation you have for the complex entity that you propose as the creator ? Surely it is more reasonable to accept complexity from known sources than to assume unexplained, highly complex entities.