The Classic Proofs of God

[jonathan]

Excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat.
September 1, 1909.



The Existence of God


Theistic proofs

The arguments for God's existence are variously classified
and entitled by different writers, but all agree in
recognizing the distinction between a priori, or deductive,
and a posteriori, or inductive reasoning in this connection.
And while all admit the validity and sufficiency of the
latter method, opinion is divided in regard to the former.
Some maintain that a valid a priori proof (usually called
the ontological) is available; others deny this completely;
while some others maintain an attitude of compromise or
neutrality. This difference, it should be observed, applies
only to the question of proving God's actual existence;
for, His self-existence being admitted, it is necessary
to employ a priori or deductive inference in order to
arrive at a knowledge of His nature and attributes, and
as it is impossible to develop the arguments for His existence
without some working notion of His nature, it is necessary
to some extent to anticipate the deductive stage and combine
the a priori with the a posteriori method. But no strictly
a priori conclusion need be more than hypothetically assumed
at this stage.



A posteriori argument

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii)
and after him many scholastic writers advance the
five following arguments to prove the existence of God:


Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it
takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover
(primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should
postulate an infinite series of movers, which is
inconceivable.

For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them
operating in this world, imply the existence of a
First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in
itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and
this is God.

The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose
non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the
existence of a necessary being, who is God.

The graduated perfections of being actually existing in
the universe can be understood only by comparison with
an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an
infinitely perfect Being such as God.

The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design
which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a
supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm



Concerning the last proof using intelligent design, recent
advances in the mathematics of random systems has shown
the following argument to be in fact backwards.



The argument from design

"To begin with particular examples of adaptation which may be
appealed to in countless number — the eye, for instance, as an
organ of sight is a conspicuous embodiment of intelligent purpose
— and not less but more so when viewed as the product of
an evolutionary process rather than the immediate handiwork
of the Creator. There is no option in such cases between the
hypothesis of a directing intelligence and that of blind chance,
and the absurdity of supposing that the eye originated suddenly
by a single blind chance is augmented a thousand-fold by
suggesting that it may be the product of a progressive series
of such chances. "Natural selection", "survival of the fittest",
and similar terms merely describe certain phases in the
supposed process of evolution without helping the least
to explain it;"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm




It has been shown that a dynamic entanglement of
the 'rules of operation' (natural laws) and
'freedom of interaction' (random interactions)
....explains evolution.

Or genetics and selection.

So an essentially infinite sequence of random events
operating within natural laws does in fact have the
tendency to create 'intelligent' outputs.

Contrary to the intuition of both religious and
classical scientific views, as neither camp generally
has been able to comprehend how randomness often leads
to increasing order.





Jonathan



"Truth is as old as God
His Twin identity
And will endure as long as He
A Co-Eternity

And perish on the Day
Himself is borne away
From Mansion of the Universe
A lifeless Deity."




s

[wpih...@gmail.com]

I can conceive of a perfect Flying Spaghetti Monster

A Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists is more perfect than
a Flying Spaghetti Monster that does not exist.

Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

[jonathan]

Do your parents know you're online?

[Dale]

I thought God "was" inconceivable in Christianity?

>
> For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them
> operating in this world, imply the existence of a
> First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in
> itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and
> this is God.
>
> The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose
> non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the
> existence of a necessary being, who is God.
>
> The graduated perfections of being actually existing in
> the universe can be understood only by comparison with
> an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an
> infinitely perfect Being such as God.
>
> The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design
> which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a
> supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

instead of a designer it "might" mean everything has, is, and will
exist in a continuum of cause in some form or essence, God being one
essence

maybe?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[jonathan]

What's inconceivable is that the universe didn't have
a beginning, so an uncaused cause, prime mover or
that which has no predecessor must exist.

God is that which is not dependent upon anything else
for it's existence.

The logical assumption the universe had a beginning
is the premise for the belief in God.

The scientific attempt to prove the big bang in
no way refutes the assumption behind the belief
in God, quite the contrary it confirms the
assumption.

>
>>
>> For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them
>> operating in this world, imply the existence of a
>> First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in
>> itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and
>> this is God.
>>
>> The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose
>> non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the
>> existence of a necessary being, who is God.
>>
>> The graduated perfections of being actually existing in
>> the universe can be understood only by comparison with
>> an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an
>> infinitely perfect Being such as God.
>>
>> The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design
>> which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a
>> supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

>
> instead of a designer it "might" mean everything has, is, and will
> exist in a continuum of cause in some form or essence, God being one
> essence
>
> maybe?
>

Or God is analogous to a seed that has the potential
to produce a forest.

[eridanus]

Yeah. But not anywhere. I do not see any forest in Mars, or in the planet Mercury. Not in the south pole, if it is full of ice.

Then problem about the primum mobile, only makes sense, for we easily tire
of imagining an infinity chain of causations, that would last a whole
eternity. It is as absurd a universe that come out of nothing as an
eternal universe.

But to me, the essence of an eternal god, that suddenly changes its mind
of being alone, and creates a universe makes not any sense.
As we are often used to speak of god like it had a personality close to
being human What is the purpose of a god, that was alone an infinity amount
of time, to create the universe in a big bang? In human terms of thinking
this idea makes not any sense.
I prefer to think of the words of John in 1:1 "In the beginning was the
word, and the word was with god, and the word was god."
Then, god was created by the human voice. It is the speech of humans that
created the gods at his own image and likeness. You only need to read the
myths we have written about the gods.
eri

>
>
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Concerning the last proof using intelligent design, recent
> >> advances in the mathematics of random systems has shown
> >> the following argument to be in fact backwards.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The argument from design
> >>
> >> "To begin with particular examples of adaptation which may be

> >> appealed to in countless number -- the eye, for instance, as an

> >> organ of sight is a conspicuous embodiment of intelligent purpose

> >> -- and not less but more so when viewed as the product of

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:26:51 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:

Cue Inigo Montoya...

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:25:06 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:

[re: The Catholic "proof of God"]

Do yours? More important, do you have a rebuttal, preferably
one in English prose, with no included quotes from dead
poets?

[jonathan]

Maybe you're not looking hard enough?

Even dead dry rocks can self-organize (evolve) and
take on a life-of-it's-own, analogous to a forest.
The concept behind the same biological evolution
discussed in this ng has been extended to just
about everything that exists.

'Forests' or lives of their own are ...EVERYWHERE!
Not just with living systems.


25 Years of Self-Organized Criticality: Solar
and Astrophysics

In the following years, an inspiring cross-fertilization
from complexity theory to solar and astrophysics took place,
where the SOC concept was initially applied to solar flares,
stellar flares, and magnetospheric substorms, and later
extended to the radiation belt, the heliosphere, lunar
craters, the asteroid belt, the Saturn ring, pulsar glitches,
soft X-ray repeaters, blazars, black-hole objects,
cosmic rays, and boson clouds. The application of SOC concepts
has been performed by numerical cellular automaton simulations,
by analytical calculations of statistical (powerlaw-like)
distributions based on physical scaling laws, and by
observational tests of theoretically predicted size
distributions and waiting time distributions.

Attempts have been undertaken to import physical models
into the numerical SOC toy models, such as the
discretization of magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD) processes.
The novel applications stimulated also vigorous debates
about the discrimination between SOC models, SOC-like,
and non-SOC processes, such as phase transitions,
turbulence, random-walk diffusion, percolation, branching
processes, network theory, chaos theory, fractality,
multi-scale, and other complexity phenomena.

We review SOC studies from the last 25 years and highlight
new trends, open questions, and future challenges, as
discussed during two recent ISSI workshops on this theme.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11214-014-0054-6

>I do not see any forest in Mars,

Most of the northern hemisphere of Mars, just a
few meters underground, is thought to contain soil
that's up to....50% water ice.

And as one goes deeper the temperatures increase while
the solar radiation decreases. In short, Mars could
and quite likely does or did, have a 'forest' of
microbial life that's some /half the size/ of the
surface of the planet.

The loss of the atmosphere just means any forest
must be moved underground.

When the /first/ true rover landed on Mars, Opportunity,
it quite by chance landed in the middle of a field
of these things below. And no one has yet to fully
explain how they could form from only erosional or
chemical processes.

Billions of them, in the craters, in the fields
in the rocks, in the soil, sticking to rocks, and
most looking surprisingly pristine.

An entire 'forest' of them in fact.

What are they?

Small
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML

Large
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML



New Study Says Large Regions of Mars Could Sustain Life
http://www.universetoday.com/91848/new-study-says-large-regions-of-mars-could-sustain-life/

>or in the planet Mercury.

It takes a 'forest' of interacting rocks, gas and
dust to make a planet.


Self-organization
from Wiki

There are several broad classes of physical processes that
can be described as self-organization. Such examples
from physics include: ...structure formation in astrophysics
and cosmology (including star formation, planetary systems
formation, galaxy formation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

> Not in the south pole, if it is full of ice.
>

Microbial community structure of Arctic multiyear sea ice
and surface seawater
http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v6/n1/full/ismej201176a.html

> Then problem about the primum mobile, only makes sense, for we easily tire
> of imagining an infinity chain of causations, that would last a whole
> eternity. It is as absurd a universe that come out of nothing as an
> eternal universe.
>
> But to me, the essence of an eternal god, that suddenly changes its mind
> of being alone, and creates a universe makes not any sense.
> As we are often used to speak of god like it had a personality close to
> being human What is the purpose of a god, that was alone an infinity amount
> of time, to create the universe in a big bang? In human terms of thinking
> this idea makes not any sense.
> I prefer to think of the words of John in 1:1 "In the beginning was the
> word, and the word was with god, and the word was god."
> Then, god was created by the human voice. It is the speech of humans that
> created the gods at his own image and likeness. You only need to read the
> myths we have written about the gods.

They myths or philosophies about God are analogous to
a painting of the original. The quality of the painting
is necessarily far less than ideal, and will vary greatly
with each painter.

It's the original that matters.

No one can explain the beauty and simplicity of nature
to others, or make others believe in God. Each of us
have to figure it out for...ourselves.

What do you believe?




"I would not paint a picture
I'd rather be the One
Its bright impossibility
To dwell delicious on
And wonder how the fingers feel
Whose rare celestial stir
Evokes so sweet a Torment
Such sumptuous Despair

Nor would I be a Poet
It's finer own the Ear
Enamored - impotent - content
The License to revere,
A privilege so awful
What would the Dower be,
Had I the Art to stun myself
With Bolts of Melody!"







s

[jonathan]

On 11/10/2015 12:39 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:



> Cue Inigo Montoya


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAI9_MkmBM



I've yet to read any reply from you that's
worth a damn.



s

[Walter Bushell]

In article <8to9iq....@news.alt.net>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
wrote:

> I thought God "was" inconceivable in Christianity?

Well in Christianity, Jesus was born; and he is God; so he was
conceivable; hence God is conceivable.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:30:33 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jonathan

<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

I'll consider that a compliment. Meanwhile, care to answer
the question I posed elsethread, the one regarding your
apparent inability to rebut a question? Here, since you
missed it I'll quote the relevant passages:

[begin]

[re: The Catholic "proof of God"]

>On 11/9/2015 7:03 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:

>> I can conceive of a perfect Flying Spaghetti Monster
>>
>> A Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists is more perfect than
>> a Flying Spaghetti Monster that does not exist.
>>
>> Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

> Do your parents know you're online?

Do yours? More important, do you have a rebuttal, preferably
one in English prose, with no included quotes from dead
poets?

[end]

Mr. Hughes' analogy fits the Catholic "proof" exactly, so
asking you to rebut it seems logical; after all, there's a
non-zero (if minuscule) probability that you may have
thought of something neither he nor I did. Or did I hurt
your little feelings with my comment about dead poets, so
much so that you went off to your corner to sulk?

[jonathan]

The proof is based primarily on the assumption the
universe must have had a beginning. Do you believe
it did?

1) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?

And your straw-man spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

The proof refers to something that does indeed exist.
The "graduated perfections' it refers to is reality
namely /the universe and nature/. Do you deny the
universe and nature exists?

2) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?

Can you imagine a more perfect reality than what
we observe, what actually exists? Or not?

3) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?

I (not) eagerly await your thoughtless and
uneducated reply that is likely to go along
the lines of..."that's all bullshit".

Or another timeless debating response like
...."no it isn't" or it's 'clever' opposite
...."yes it is".

As if anyone would be convinced by that kind
of reply, for instance spaghetti analogies.



Jonathan



"Tell all the Truth but tell it slant
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind"



s

[jonathan]

On 11/11/2015 9:38 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <8to9iq....@news.alt.net>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I thought God "was" inconceivable in Christianity?
>
> Well in Christianity, Jesus was born; and he is God; so he was
> conceivable; hence God is conceivable.
>

Oh for Christ sake!




s

[RonO]

On 11/9/2015 5:15 PM, jonathan wrote:
>
> Excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
>
> Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat.
> September 1, 1909.
>
>
>

Were there any successful proofs, that they could get people to agree on?

When I took Christian history in college proof wasn't what the church
was trying to determine in any systematic fashion.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <8to9iq....@news.alt.net>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I thought God "was" inconceivable in Christianity?
>
> Well in Christianity, Jesus was born; and he is God; so he was
> conceivable; hence God is conceivable.
>

Conceivably.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:32:17 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

Precisely.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:56:46 -0500, the following appeared

Of course; that's what the available evidence indicates, and
no evidence indicates otherwise. But I fail to see the
connection to what Mr. Hughes posted, which has nothing to
do with whether the universe had a beginning, but only deals
with a particular pair of logic trees.

>1) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>
>And your straw-man spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

Ummm... That is the exact point he was making, that such a
"proof" proves nothing at all, and is merely an exercise in
construction of a (possibly) valid logic chain built on a
questionable premise. It's not a "strawman" since it
embodies the exact same logic used in the Catholic "proof of
God".

>The proof refers to something that does indeed exist.
>The "graduated perfections' it refers to is reality
>namely /the universe and nature/. Do you deny the
>universe and nature exists?

That's quite a shift. If I say "yes", do you imagine that
I'm accepting your assertion that the universe embodies
"graduated perfection"? In my view it doesn't, whatever you
may mean by the term.

>2) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>
>Can you imagine a more perfect reality than what
>we observe, what actually exists? Or not?

Of course, with the proviso that "perfection" has as many
meanings as there are people. But what does what I can
imagine have to do with what actually exists?

>3) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>
>I (not) eagerly await your thoughtless and
>uneducated reply that is likely to go along
>the lines of..."that's all bullshit".

Since I didn't do that you can rest easy. You may even want
to read what I wrote, think about it, and respond. Or not.

>Or another timeless debating response like
>...."no it isn't" or it's 'clever' opposite
>...."yes it is".

I don't seem to do that, at least not without an
explanation. Do you?

>As if anyone would be convinced by that kind
>of reply, for instance spaghetti analogies.

The fact that you apparently failed to understand the
relevance of the analogy doesn't make it invalid.

And all your "simple" questions (which aren't, at least if
considered carefully) have been addressed.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

Note that the above is one of the
classic formations of Anselm "Ontological"
proof that God exists, with the FSM substituted
for God.

The ontological argument is my favourite. It seem
so absurd when you first see it that you know
it has to be wrong. But it turns out to be quite
subtle.

--
William Hughes

[erik simpson]

I tried to imagine the subleties, but failed to achieve satisfaction. So I
looked it up (GIY[Fiend]), and started reading. I managed to stop before my
head exploded, but I was amazed at the number of profound(?) thinkers who
wasted similar time. What wonders could have been produced by such as Leibniz,
Kant, Godel, et. al. if they hadn't been distracted by this nonsense.

[Robert Camp]

Seems like a good time to recall Australian philosopher Doug Gasking's
wry version of St. Anselm's argument.

------------------
1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who
created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a
greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and
incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

Ergo:

7. God does not exist.
--------------------

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:21:25 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com>:

....a proof with exactly as much validity as the original...

[Walter Bushell]

In article <6uj94bps4kfa1sdua...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> Ummm... That is the exact point he was making, that such a
> "proof" proves nothing at all, and is merely an exercise in
> construction of a (possibly) valid logic chain built on a
> questionable premise. It's not a "strawman" since it
> embodies the exact same logic used in the Catholic "proof of
> God".

The proofs of God are like the fundamental aspects of banking.
You accept some dubious principles and the rest falls out with
invincible logic. Remember that the fiscal system has to be bailed
out repeatedly, several times in my lifetime.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 10:09:14 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <6uj94bps4kfa1sdua...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> Ummm... That is the exact point he was making, that such a
>> "proof" proves nothing at all, and is merely an exercise in
>> construction of a (possibly) valid logic chain built on a
>> questionable premise. It's not a "strawman" since it
>> embodies the exact same logic used in the Catholic "proof of
>> God".
>
>The proofs of God are like the fundamental aspects of banking.
>You accept some dubious principles and the rest falls out with
>invincible logic. Remember that the fiscal system has to be bailed
>out repeatedly, several times in my lifetime.

Yep: "First, assume a spherical cow". ;-)

The difference, of course, being that math profs aren't
actually serious.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:58:03 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, jonathan, did you have some reason for asking those
questions? Or did a calm, reasoned response leave you with
nothing to say?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <n23a9s$too$1...@dont-email.me>,

That is a rye proof; I would have to drink a lot of rye to believe it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:57:25 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:58:03 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>So, jonathan, did you have some reason for asking those
>questions? Or did a calm, reasoned response leave you with
>nothing to say?

[Crickets...]

Yeah, I thought as much; thanks for confirming.

[jonathan]

Then there exists a basis for the assumptions that follows
namely there must be a cause for the creation of the
universe which defies the notion of cause and effect.
An uncaused cause which has the potential to produce
all we see.

> that's what the available evidence indicates, and
> no evidence indicates otherwise. But I fail to see the
> connection to what Mr. Hughes posted, which has nothing to
> do with whether the universe had a beginning, but only deals
> with a particular pair of logic trees.
>

Your straw-man monster does NOT have a basis in reality
hence no reasonable or logical assumptions can follow.

>> 1) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>>
>> And your straw-man spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
>
> Ummm... That is the exact point he was making, that such a
> "proof" proves nothing at all, and is merely an exercise in
> construction of a (possibly) valid logic chain built on a
> questionable premise. It's not a "strawman" since it
> embodies the exact same logic used in the Catholic "proof of
> God".
>

You're trying to claim a completely fictional straw-man
has the same level of probability as the universe having
a beginning? Nice try.

>> The proof refers to something that does indeed exist.
>> The "graduated perfections' it refers to is reality
>> namely /the universe and nature/. Do you deny the
>> universe and nature exists?
>
> That's quite a shift. If I say "yes", do you imagine that
> I'm accepting your assertion that the universe embodies
> "graduated perfection"? In my view it doesn't, whatever you
> may mean by the term.
>
>> 2) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>>
>> Can you imagine a more perfect reality than what
>> we observe, what actually exists? Or not?
>
> Of course,

That would be God.

> with the proviso that "perfection" has as many
> meanings as there are people. But what does what I can
> imagine have to do with what actually exists?
>

Landing on the moon was once only a matter of
imagination. The future doesn't exist either, yet
science is consumed with the future, in what
could be.

What's the ideal solution science asks, what's the
ideal future?

What is Utopia. What is God?

Science and religion have the same motives, their
methods only differ in causation, constructionist
vs. holistic.

What you fail or refuse to understand is that nature
requires *both*.

Evolution is co-evolutionary in nature, meaning
nothing can be left out without losing the chance
of finding the ideal solution.

Even beliefs, especially beliefs since the ONLY
way to predict the future is to go out and
create it using our imagination of the ideal
possible.

Which is God.

The true science of the future, defining God!


s

[jonathan]

On 11/14/2015 10:09 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <6uj94bps4kfa1sdua...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> Ummm... That is the exact point he was making, that such a
>> "proof" proves nothing at all, and is merely an exercise in
>> construction of a (possibly) valid logic chain built on a
>> questionable premise. It's not a "strawman" since it
>> embodies the exact same logic used in the Catholic "proof of
>> God".
>
> The proofs of God are like the fundamental aspects of banking.
> You accept some dubious principles and the rest falls out with
> invincible logic. Remember that the fiscal system has to be bailed
> out repeatedly, several times in my lifetime.
>

But the underlying assumption is the belief the universe
had a beginning. The straw-man spaghetti monster does not.

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:13:08 -0500, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
wrote:

Your paragraph is a classic example of question begging and special
pleading.

An assumption that the Universe had a beginning says nothing about its
creation, only that it had one. Its creation might have defied
notions of cause and effect, it might have had an uncaused cause, but
those are additional and independent assumptions.

OTOH to assume that the creation of the Universe had a cause, obliges
one to assume that cause had a cause, in infinite regress. You avoid
the infinite regress by assuming an uncaused cause. But then, you can
just as easily assume the Universe was uncaused.

>> that's what the available evidence indicates, and
>> no evidence indicates otherwise. But I fail to see the
>> connection to what Mr. Hughes posted, which has nothing to
>> do with whether the universe had a beginning, but only deals
>> with a particular pair of logic trees.
>>
>
>
>Your straw-man monster does NOT have a basis in reality
>hence no reasonable or logical assumptions can follow.

Your statement above applies equally to the Catholic proof of God,
which is Mr. Hughes' point.

>>> 1) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>>>
>>> And your straw-man spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
>>
>> Ummm... That is the exact point he was making, that such a
>> "proof" proves nothing at all, and is merely an exercise in
>> construction of a (possibly) valid logic chain built on a
>> questionable premise. It's not a "strawman" since it
>> embodies the exact same logic used in the Catholic "proof of
>> God".
>>
>
>
>You're trying to claim a completely fictional straw-man
>has the same level of probability as the universe having
>a beginning? Nice try.

You're trying to claim your inability to read for comprehension
provides a valid counterpoint. Nowhere do Bob or Mr. Hughes say what
you say they say. That's your fictional strawman.

>>> The proof refers to something that does indeed exist.
>>> The "graduated perfections' it refers to is reality
>>> namely /the universe and nature/. Do you deny the
>>> universe and nature exists?
>>
>> That's quite a shift. If I say "yes", do you imagine that
>> I'm accepting your assertion that the universe embodies
>> "graduated perfection"? In my view it doesn't, whatever you
>> may mean by the term.
>>
>>> 2) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>>>
>>> Can you imagine a more perfect reality than what
>>> we observe, what actually exists? Or not?
>>
>> Of course,
>
>
>That would be God.

One can imagine lots of more perfect realities than what we observe.
So which one is God? Or are you saying all of them are God? Does
that make you a pantheist? Enquiring minds want to know.

>> with the proviso that "perfection" has as many
>> meanings as there are people. But what does what I can
>> imagine have to do with what actually exists?
>>
>
>Landing on the moon was once only a matter of
>imagination. The future doesn't exist either, yet
>science is consumed with the future, in what
>could be.
>
>What's the ideal solution science asks, what's the
>ideal future?
>
>What is Utopia. What is God?
>
>Science and religion have the same motives, their
>methods only differ in causation, constructionist
>vs. holistic.
>
>What you fail or refuse to understand is that nature
>requires *both*.
>
>Evolution is co-evolutionary in nature, meaning
>nothing can be left out without losing the chance
>of finding the ideal solution.
>
>Even beliefs, especially beliefs since the ONLY
>way to predict the future is to go out and
>create it using our imagination of the ideal
>possible.
>
>Which is God.
>
>The true science of the future, defining God!

Just so I know which ideal possible you're talking about, does it
allow deleting relevant text without attribution like you usually do?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

A nice comment on the ontological argument. (XKCD strikes again)

https://xkcd.com/1505/

--
William Hughes

[jonathan]

We should let the rest of the universe guide us
for such a question. Name one thing in the known
universe that does NOT have a beginning?

If you can't answer that then assuming the ONLY exception
is the creation of the universe would mean a supernatural
cause, or outside of natural explanations.

The alternative is a universe created much like
everything else, which means creation needs
no cause, or creation is universal to all things.

As such creation could not be reduced to any
specific discipline or objective definition.
Only an abstract or subjective term could properly
describe creation.

Since my hobby clearly shows creation spontaneously
emerges (without definable cause) when standing
persistently at the phase transition between
opposites in possibility (duality), I choose
to use the abstract term 'love'.

But being a subjective term for the ineffable cause
of all creation God will do just fine.

Remember an evolving system is co-evolutionary which
means a product of the interaction between object
and environment, it's not possible to objectively
define the totality of the environmental context
at any given time.

Unless you have a God like computer, that is~

>
>>> that's what the available evidence indicates, and
>>> no evidence indicates otherwise. But I fail to see the
>>> connection to what Mr. Hughes posted, which has nothing to
>>> do with whether the universe had a beginning, but only deals
>>> with a particular pair of logic trees.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your straw-man monster does NOT have a basis in reality
>> hence no reasonable or logical assumptions can follow.
>
>
> Your statement above applies equally to the Catholic proof of God,
> which is Mr. Hughes' point.
>

The proof is based on the assumption creation of the
universe has the same property as everything else
in that it had a beginning. So the basic assumption is based
on rational observations, nature or....science.


It's late, no sinister motives for stopping here.



s

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:03:23 -0500, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>

I make no such assumption. OTOH you make the assumption that your
creator needs no cause. That's just special pleading.

>The alternative is a universe created much like
>everything else, which means creation needs
>no cause, or creation is universal to all things.

Yes, creation is universal to all things.
No, creation needs a cause.
The argument is not about creation, but is about first cause, and
recognizing the limits of evidence and logic. Your argument of a
designer as first cause is special pleading.

>As such creation could not be reduced to any
>specific discipline or objective definition.
>Only an abstract or subjective term could properly
>describe creation.

Word salad needs lots of dressing.

>Since my hobby clearly shows creation spontaneously
>emerges (without definable cause) when standing
>persistently at the phase transition between
>opposites in possibility (duality), I choose
>to use the abstract term 'love'.

So you're another troll who thinks that the label you use makes any
difference.

>But being a subjective term for the ineffable cause
>of all creation God will do just fine.
>
>Remember an evolving system is co-evolutionary which
>means a product of the interaction between object
>and environment, it's not possible to objectively
>define the totality of the environmental context
>at any given time.
>
>Unless you have a God like computer, that is~

Is that what you have? If not, then why do you insist on defining
"the totality of the environmental context at any given time" by
calling it God?

>>>> that's what the available evidence indicates, and
>>>> no evidence indicates otherwise. But I fail to see the
>>>> connection to what Mr. Hughes posted, which has nothing to
>>>> do with whether the universe had a beginning, but only deals
>>>> with a particular pair of logic trees.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your straw-man monster does NOT have a basis in reality
>>> hence no reasonable or logical assumptions can follow.
>>
>>
>> Your statement above applies equally to the Catholic proof of God,
>> which is Mr. Hughes' point.
>>
>
>The proof is based on the assumption creation of the
>universe has the same property as everything else
>in that it had a beginning. So the basic assumption is based
>on rational observations, nature or....science.

More word salad. The assumption of creation makes no assumption about
how it was created.

>It's late, no sinister motives for stopping here.

<your unattributed deletion of text noted>

>>>Even beliefs, especially beliefs since the ONLY
>>>way to predict the future is to go out and
>>>create it using our imagination of the ideal
>>>possible.
>>>
>>>Which is God.
>>>
>>>The true science of the future, defining God!
>>
>>
>>Just so I know which ideal possible you're talking about, does it
>>allow deleting relevant text without attribution like you usually do?

Apparently that's a "yes". Don't you just hate it when you prove me
right?

[Ernest Major]

You're engaging in a red herring. The FSM example embodies exactly the
same logic as the ontological "proof" of God. It's the cosmsological
"proof" which assumes that universe has a beginning.

--
alias Ernest Major

[eridanus]

this is totally gratuity, Johnathan.
Your reasoning is out of our capacity. Go back to black board.
Eri

[eridanus]

what is the reason to assume this, a beginning?
Why a beginning? Just to invent god?
eri

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:13:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:

Of course there's a "cause"; there's a cause for everything,
whether we understand it or not. Your error is in assuming
you know and understand that cause.

>An uncaused cause which has the potential to produce
>all we see.

>> that's what the available evidence indicates, and
>> no evidence indicates otherwise. But I fail to see the
>> connection to what Mr. Hughes posted, which has nothing to
>> do with whether the universe had a beginning, but only deals
>> with a particular pair of logic trees.

>Your straw-man monster does NOT have a basis in reality
>hence no reasonable or logical assumptions can follow.

What "straw man monster"? The only thing he posted was an
analogous logic tree based on an assumption, exactly like
the "Catholic proof of God". There is no strawman there. Do
you even know what a strawman is?

>>> 1) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>>>
>>> And your straw-man spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

>> Ummm... That is the exact point he was making, that such a
>> "proof" proves nothing at all, and is merely an exercise in
>> construction of a (possibly) valid logic chain built on a
>> questionable premise. It's not a "strawman" since it
>> embodies the exact same logic used in the Catholic "proof of
>> God".

>You're trying to claim a completely fictional straw-man
>has the same level of probability as the universe having
>a beginning? Nice try.

Apparently you can't read for comprehension; he made no such
claim, nor did I. Try reading it again; nothing was said
about the probability of the universe having a beginning
other than to note that using that fact doesn't allow one to
assume the existence of a particular entity.

>>> The proof refers to something that does indeed exist.
>>> The "graduated perfections' it refers to is reality
>>> namely /the universe and nature/. Do you deny the
>>> universe and nature exists?
>>
>> That's quite a shift. If I say "yes", do you imagine that
>> I'm accepting your assertion that the universe embodies
>> "graduated perfection"? In my view it doesn't, whatever you
>> may mean by the term.
>>
>>> 2) Can you answer that simple question? Yes or no?
>>>
>>> Can you imagine a more perfect reality than what
>>> we observe, what actually exists? Or not?
>>
>> Of course,

>That would be God.

....or Brahma, logically. Or many others; check here for an
(incomplete) list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Or for that matter, the FSM.

>> with the proviso that "perfection" has as many
>> meanings as there are people. But what does what I can
>> imagine have to do with what actually exists?

>Landing on the moon was once only a matter of
>imagination. The future doesn't exist either, yet
>science is consumed with the future, in what
>could be.

So your contention is that since we can imagine God we can
make Him come into existence? IIRC that argument is not new,
but it doesn't provide any support for the contention that
only a specific deity (or in fact *any* deity) created the
universe. The contrary, in fact.

>What's the ideal solution science asks, what's the
>ideal future?
>
>What is Utopia. What is God?
>
>Science and religion have the same motives, their
>methods only differ in causation, constructionist
>vs. holistic.
>
>What you fail or refuse to understand is that nature
>requires *both*.
>
>Evolution is co-evolutionary in nature, meaning
>nothing can be left out without losing the chance
>of finding the ideal solution.
>
>Even beliefs, especially beliefs since the ONLY
>way to predict the future is to go out and
>create it using our imagination of the ideal
>possible.
>
>Which is God.
>
>The true science of the future, defining God!

Nice words, but of no meaning to the question.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:17:37 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, jonathan, no response? And after I answered all your
questions, too, *and* answered your replies...

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:19:38 PM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> Excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
>
> Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat.
> September 1, 1909.
>
>
>

> The Existence of God
>
>
> Theistic proofs
>
> The arguments for God's existence are variously classified
> and entitled by different writers, but all agree in
> recognizing the distinction between a priori, or deductive,
> and a posteriori, or inductive reasoning in this connection.
> And while all admit the validity and sufficiency of the
> latter method, opinion is divided in regard to the former.
> Some maintain that a valid a priori proof (usually called
> the ontological) is available; others deny this completely;
> while some others maintain an attitude of compromise or
> neutrality. This difference, it should be observed, applies
> only to the question of proving God's actual existence;
> for, His self-existence being admitted, it is necessary
> to employ a priori or deductive inference in order to
> arrive at a knowledge of His nature and attributes, and
> as it is impossible to develop the arguments for His existence
> without some working notion of His nature, it is necessary
> to some extent to anticipate the deductive stage and combine
> the a priori with the a posteriori method. But no strictly
> a priori conclusion need be more than hypothetically assumed
> at this stage.
>
>
>
> A posteriori argument
>
> St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii)
> and after him many scholastic writers advance the
> five following arguments to prove the existence of God:
>
>
> Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it
> takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover
> (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should
> postulate an infinite series of movers, which is
> inconceivable.

Pretty much a dead duck, if the universe began as a vacuum fluctuation
in a false vacuum. In the QM world, being at rest is impossible. No
need to set things into motion.


>
> For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them
> operating in this world, imply the existence of a
> First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in
> itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and
> this is God.

Nope. Again, you are talking about variational problems,
principle of least action, minimum time problems.


>
> The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose
> non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the
> existence of a necessary being, who is God.

You mean like faeries?


>
> The graduated perfections of being actually existing in
> the universe can be understood only by comparison with
> an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an
> infinitely perfect Being such as God.
>
> The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design
> which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a
> supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
>
>
>
> Concerning the last proof using intelligent design, recent
> advances in the mathematics of random systems has shown
> the following argument to be in fact backwards.

No. Design is an hypothesis. If you are proposing that the universe
is manufactured, then you need to deliver the manufacturing process and
physical evidence supporting the assertion that this manufacturing process
has been applied.


>
>
>
> The argument from design
>
> "To begin with particular examples of adaptation which may be
> appealed to in countless number -- the eye, for instance, as an
> organ of sight is a conspicuous embodiment of intelligent purpose
> -- and not less but more so when viewed as the product of
> an evolutionary process rather than the immediate handiwork
> of the Creator. There is no option in such cases between the
> hypothesis of a directing intelligence and that of blind chance,
> and the absurdity of supposing that the eye originated suddenly
> by a single blind chance is augmented a thousand-fold by
> suggesting that it may be the product of a progressive series
> of such chances. "Natural selection", "survival of the fittest",
> and similar terms merely describe certain phases in the
> supposed process of evolution without helping the least
> to explain it;"
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
>
>
>
>
> It has been shown that a dynamic entanglement of
> the 'rules of operation' (natural laws) and
> 'freedom of interaction' (random interactions)
> ....explains evolution.
>
> Or genetics and selection.
>
> So an essentially infinite sequence of random events
> operating within natural laws does in fact have the
> tendency to create 'intelligent' outputs.
>
> Contrary to the intuition of both religious and
> classical scientific views, as neither camp generally
> has been able to comprehend how randomness often leads
> to increasing order.
>

Randomness means obeying the laws of probability under a particular
statistical distribution. Individual events might not be predictable,
but the pattern of behavior may be statistically treatable.

That about does it for arguments (or "proofs" Ha!) for the existence
of God (not sure which one its supposed to be.)

-john


-John


>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> "Truth is as old as God
> His Twin identity
> And will endure as long as He
> A Co-Eternity
>
> And perish on the Day
> Himself is borne away
> From Mansion of the Universe
> A lifeless Deity."
>
>
>
>
> s

[kiwi.j...@gmail.com]

I can conceive of a most perfect invisible-pink-unicorn.

The perfect-IPU would be less perfect if it lacked existence. Therefore, it exists.

To think that in this day and age, 25 years after Usenet poured talk.origins into the shallow end of the gene pool, people are *still* bulk-posting ill-formed arguments which can be refuted by simply checking Wikipedia. What a asste to all of us who worked on "the Internet".

and to think that my former monicker here has been taken by a Thomistic Creationist. It's a sad, sad world.

. .an Uncaused Cause? It's the Great Green Arkleseisure, doofus. I say so.
I have at least as much right to claim that, as *you* do to claim that it's the Trinitarian Xtian "god".

Therefore, the Universe was created by the Great Green Arkleseizure, QED.
Thank you for proving my point.

[eridanus]

> For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them
> operating in this world, imply the existence of a
> First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in
> itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and
> this is God.
>

> The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose
> non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the
> existence of a necessary being, who is God.
>

> The graduated perfections of being actually existing in
> the universe can be understood only by comparison with
> an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an
> infinitely perfect Being such as God.
>
> The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design
> which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a
> supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
>
>
>
> Concerning the last proof using intelligent design, recent
> advances in the mathematics of random systems has shown
> the following argument to be in fact backwards.
>
>
>

> Jonathan
>
>
>
> "Truth is as old as God
> His Twin identity
> And will endure as long as He
> A Co-Eternity
>
> And perish on the Day
> Himself is borne away
> From Mansion of the Universe
> A lifeless Deity."
>
>
>
>
> s

it there are some "classic proves" of the existence of god they must be
obsolete.
eridanus

[Kalkidas]

On 2/19/2016 9:41 PM, kiwi.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> I can conceive of a most perfect invisible-pink-unicorn.

It's not perfect because it's only a unicorn. It's not a lion, or a
carrot, or a human being. So it lacks those attributes. A perfect thing
must have all possible attributes in full.

> The perfect-IPU would be less perfect if it lacked existence. Therefore, it exists.

Existence is not an attribute of anything, because if it was, things
could either have it or not. But there is no such thing as "something
which lacks existence".

[eridanus]

of course, the norm is to have two horns. If it has only one horn is
not accorded to god's principles. A unicorn must be the work of Satan.

[*Hemidactylus*]

POTM?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Thinking up something grants it existence...in your head. But then
where's the impetus for projecting that thought up thingy with its in
the head ontology and projecting it out into the world?

I just had a thought. You could be hosting me as brain in vat creating
me and my thoughts, I don't know. Red pill or blue pill in this Mayan
veil dilemma? Ask Schopie?

The sky god is the limit when it comes to projected thoughts.

[Kalkidas]

On 2/20/2016 11:08 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 02/20/2016 08:24 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 2/19/2016 9:41 PM, kiwi.j...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I can conceive of a most perfect invisible-pink-unicorn.
>>
>> It's not perfect because it's only a unicorn. It's not a lion, or a
>> carrot, or a human being. So it lacks those attributes. A perfect thing
>> must have all possible attributes in full.
>>
>>> The perfect-IPU would be less perfect if it lacked existence.
>>> Therefore, it exists.
>>
>> Existence is not an attribute of anything, because if it was, things
>> could either have it or not. But there is no such thing as "something
>> which lacks existence".
>
> Thinking up something grants it existence...in your head. But then
> where's the impetus for projecting that thought up thingy with its in
> the head ontology and projecting it out into the world?

You seem to claim expertise in distinguishing between things merely
"thought up in the head" and things actually observed outside the head
and subsequently thought about in the head.

I wonder what criteria you use to make that distinction.

[eridanus]

sure. A thingy is a thingy and has not any meaning till we start to make
some speech about it. We have in our brain not other stuff that speeches
about the things around us. All we know about the world around us is words.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/20/2016 01:25 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/20/2016 11:08 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 02/20/2016 08:24 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2016 9:41 PM, kiwi.j...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I can conceive of a most perfect invisible-pink-unicorn.
>>>
>>> It's not perfect because it's only a unicorn. It's not a lion, or a
>>> carrot, or a human being. So it lacks those attributes. A perfect thing
>>> must have all possible attributes in full.
>>>
>>>> The perfect-IPU would be less perfect if it lacked existence.
>>>> Therefore, it exists.
>>>
>>> Existence is not an attribute of anything, because if it was, things
>>> could either have it or not. But there is no such thing as "something
>>> which lacks existence".
>>
>> Thinking up something grants it existence...in your head. But then
>> where's the impetus for projecting that thought up thingy with its in
>> the head ontology and projecting it out into the world?
>
> You seem to claim expertise in distinguishing between things merely
> "thought up in the head" and things actually observed outside the head
> and subsequently thought about in the head.

Well I see the rationalist-inductivist dilemma here and thought Popper
admirably tried to tie the knot between Kant and Hume. What we abstract
from the world involves a lot of internal processing so it's kinda made
up. But there's an "out there" that impacts our subjective inner spaces.
We aren't brains in vats.

> I wonder what criteria you use to make that distinction.

Depends on the topic. As for science, being a lay person I place trust
in the expertise of others. I assume they applied their scientific
methods properly. Topically Darwin took ideas from Malthus, Owen and
others and developed his theories of evolution. Malthus helped with
natural selection. Owen helped with common ancestry. It worked and still
does to this day.

For epistemology I have followed Popper pretty closely as a layperson.
Though I roll my eyes at his Four Horsemen theatrics and some of his
recent tweets on the Dawkins controversy have been troubling, but Peter
Boghossian's _A Manual for Creating Atheists_ which I'm currently
rereading has good points to make about addressing faith-based topics
and having sufficient evidence to warrant one's beliefs. He also said
some stuff that inspired me to think more clearly about morality,
especially vis a vis societies that violate norms on human rights. Can't
stomach relativism here.

For morality, that's more problematic. I abhor scientism. I think
there's more of an informed intersubjective agreement or consensus on
moral issues and no absolutes nor a truly objective foundation for
morality. I found Sam Harris in _The Moral Landscape_ to be
disappointing in how he approached is vs. ought. But he makes some
interesting points for eudaemonic values, though WD Ross's principle of
non-malfeasance seems better.

An issue I've wondered about is whether one can have sufficient
reason(s) to cross the threshold from is to ought, justifying making a
factually informed prescriptive choice. I call this "Harris's firewall".
It's complicated. And for now good enough for usenet (G.E.F.U).

For religious matters, there's not much by way of factual
correspondence. Maybe the criterion is coherence with the syatem, but
such systems possess stunning contradictions. Compare Jesus's morality
to that of Moses. And let's not take Genesis too literally, especially
the retrofit of New Testament post-Job and Zorastrian Satan to that poor
wise serpent, who merely wanted to bring epistemic clarity to the urcouple.

[Kalkidas]

In all this I do not see any clear means by which you have determined
that there is no difference between the invisible pink unicorn -- which
the OP admitted he originated in his mind -- and the Supreme Absolute
Godhead, which no one has ever admitted they originated in their minds,
but rather have consistently claimed that they were utterly taken by
surprise upon encountering Him.

[ed wolf]

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:49:45 PM UTC+1, eridanus wrote:

> sure. A thingy is a thingy and has not any meaning till we start to make
> some speech about it. We have in our brain not other stuff that speeches
> about the things around us. All we know about the world around us is words.

Is that a brain in a vat talking?
We know plenty more than we can put in words. We can recognise people
long before we can say a word. As grown-ups, we can recognise things
and people we are not able to describe properly in words.
Our actions in any moment are not guided by words, we just walk, cook,
make love, whatever, without ever describing the action in words to
understand it. We can even make very complex decisions without even
consciously thinking about them, with or without words.
Think of going downhill on a mountain bike, there will be a million
(hopefully)smart decisions, guided by experience and perception, but
not a single word until you are on level ground again.
A thingy is a thingy until you bump your nose on it is more like it.
ed

[eridanus]

Yeah, you are right. But neither of all this is considered science.
Monkeys can also recognize the face of all members of the gang, and can
climb trees easily. Tow boxers must know a lot while boxing. But his
is hardly a science.
Science is to put a speech attached to some elements of nature. Basically,
the collections of speeches, before it was called science, they were called
philosophy, and before it was philosophy it was called logos; and logic comes
from logos.
To use logic is to make the "appropriate speech" around some matter, or
to give out an explanation about a set of facts. Thus, basically we
cannot develop a science without using the proper speech, or logos. But to
run downhill in a bicycle at great speech you do not need to make a speech.
In fact it can be dangerous if you do it. You can get distracted and crash.

Other problem is the amount of trash someone can say when making a speech
about points, m, o, p, q.

eridanus. 50 years since I rode on a bicycle.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 11:25:49 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 2/20/2016 11:08 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 02/20/2016 08:24 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2016 9:41 PM, kiwi.j...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I can conceive of a most perfect invisible-pink-unicorn.
>>>
>>> It's not perfect because it's only a unicorn. It's not a lion, or a
>>> carrot, or a human being. So it lacks those attributes. A perfect thing
>>> must have all possible attributes in full.
>>>
>>>> The perfect-IPU would be less perfect if it lacked existence.
>>>> Therefore, it exists.
>>>
>>> Existence is not an attribute of anything, because if it was, things
>>> could either have it or not. But there is no such thing as "something
>>> which lacks existence".
>>
>> Thinking up something grants it existence...in your head. But then
>> where's the impetus for projecting that thought up thingy with its in
>> the head ontology and projecting it out into the world?

>You seem to claim expertise

"Expertise"? I disagree; it's a conjecture followed by a
question.

> in distinguishing between things merely
>"thought up in the head" and things actually observed outside the head
>and subsequently thought about in the head.
>
>I wonder what criteria you use to make that distinction.

I'd say a good starting point would be personal observation
of the purported "thing" combined with the ability to
demonstrate the existence of that "thing" to an objective
audience. Without the second there's no evidence that the
"thing" exists as other than a mental construct.

>> I just had a thought. You could be hosting me as brain in vat creating
>> me and my thoughts, I don't know. Red pill or blue pill in this Mayan
>> veil dilemma? Ask Schopie?
>>
>> The sky god is the limit when it comes to projected thoughts.
>
>

[kiwi.j...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:24:47 AM UTC-8, Kalkidas wrote:

My Ironyometer just broke. Laughter and pleghm (I'm recovering from pneumonia) zorched it. Bertrand Russell takes exception to your viewpoint; it's expounded very clearly in "The History of Western Philosophy"

Unless ... perhaps, just perhaps, you're _serious_, and you failed to appreciate my irony. Can you prove completeness of LPC with equivalence? Gosh, I wish I could remember how old I was when I borrowed Kurt Go"del's incompleteness monograph from the local university library.

OoOooh! Go ahead and hit me on thermodynamics-and-evolution. Please. Go on, do it. You know you want to...

[kiwi.j...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-8, jonathan wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 9:38 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <8to9iq....@news.alt.net>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I thought God "was" inconceivable in Christianity?
> >
> > Well in Christianity, Jesus was born; and he is God; so he was
> > conceivable; hence God is conceivable.
> >

>
> Oh for Christ sake!

Indeed.

I see that Walter Bushnell excludes non-Nicene-creed sects from Christianity.
In other words, Walter says that Mormons (LDS) aren't Christian. (Nor are Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Walter, are you sure you want to stand by that? Do tell.

[Burkhard]

kiwi.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:24:47 AM UTC-8, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 2/19/2016 9:41 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>> I can conceive of a most perfect invisible-pink-unicorn.
>>
>> It's not perfect because it's only a unicorn. It's not a lion, or a
>> carrot, or a human being. So it lacks those attributes. A perfect thing
>> must have all possible attributes in full.
>>
>>> The perfect-IPU would be less perfect if it lacked existence. Therefore, it exists.
>>
>> Existence is not an attribute of anything, because if it was, things
>> could either have it or not. But there is no such thing as "something
>> which lacks existence".
>
> My Ironyometer just broke. Laughter and pleghm (I'm recovering from pneumonia) zorched it. Bertrand Russell takes exception to your viewpoint; it's expounded very clearly in "The History of Western Philosophy"
>

Could you give a cite to which part of the book you mean? The idea that
existence is not an attribute goes back at least to Aristotle, was taken
on by Hume and then made particulalry influential through Kant:

“Thus when I think a thing, through whichever and however many
predicates I like (even in its thoroughgoing determination), not the
least bit gets added to the thing when I posit in addition that this
thing is. (Critique of pure reason, Critique of Pure Reason,
A596/B624-A602/B630)

One reason that this view became do dominate western philosophy was
precisely hat it was taken on by logicians such as Frege and Russel -
in neither system will you find "existence" as an attribute or
property, rather it is analyzed syntactically as the existential
quantifier. Russel of course did this most famously in his 1905 Mind
article "On denoting", that introduced us to "the present king of France"

Now, there are exceptions to this approach, most notably Meinong and his
followers. They introduce a difference between existence as property and
the existential quantifier (n modern forms, typically rendered in
possible world semantics, where E! becomes the property to exist in the
actual world), but while I have lots of sympathies with this apporach,
it is hardly mainstream. And of course, there too you come to the
conclusion that "everything exists", for a given reading of "exists".

[Kalkidas]

Everything exists. Nothing doesn't exist. Does that help?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <efcd5d0a-0c2f-4123...@googlegroups.com>,

Matter of definition. Perhaps the majority of people who publicly claim
Christianity would agree with the above definition. Certainly the
minister of my parent's church (Methodist) believed such.

I mean if descent from a cult you recognize as Christian is Christian
Unitarians are Christians.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <mrudnZs6ZY45NlXL...@giganews.com>,

Time for a stroll with Alice through the Woods Where Things Have
No Names. Existence of entities as such is a mental proposition and
exists only in our minds. The universe operates without objects. Just
as such. We divide the Universe into object for convenience. No purpose
no objects or things.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <A9OdnfBY1duDJlXL...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> Depends on the topic. As for science, being a lay person I place trust
> in the expertise of others. I assume they applied their scientific
> methods properly.

Scientists are just as fallible as anyone. Increased intelligence allows
people to defend indefensible ideas better and education can produce
arrogance as can ignorance.

If it's personally important to you, you better read the Journals or at
least the critiques. When big money gets involved science can get
massively "sexually inter-coursed".

[Walter Bushell]

In article <naasdo$st7$1...@dont-email.me>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>
> In all this I do not see any clear means by which you have determined
> that there is no difference between the invisible pink unicorn -- which
> the OP admitted he originated in his mind -- and the Supreme Absolute
> Godhead, which no one has ever admitted they originated in their minds,
> but rather have consistently claimed that they were utterly taken by
> surprise upon encountering Him.

They are wrong, of course. If this world is a created one, it would be a
woman creator rather than male. I mean really, does this world look like
a man created it?!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:49:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

No response? OK.