People can't define God any way they like

It's always a pleasure to share perceptive well-written comments on this blog by Appreciative Reader. Below is my latest offering from him. I admire the breadth of knowledge Appreciative Reader has, along with his passion for truth. Calling out spurious reasoning (sometimes better called lies) by other commenters is a specialty of Appreciative Reader which I appreciate. This is a great example.

“Hi AP,
Some define God as, “I am that I am.” Others say, “God is Love.”
Some say God is a man with a beard who smites people.
Buddhists say it none of that but a place called Nirvana.
Everyone gets to define it how they see fit and believe accordingly. There is no one right definition for anyone.”

Posted by: 12 months left | April 15, 2023 at 10:33 PM

----------
Hello, 12 months left.

Pardon me, I’m going to disagree again. Disagree strongly. And I’m going to be blunt about it, again. I’m sorry, I don’t wish to be the Internet ass that keeps on flogging some issue beyond the limits of courtesy -- despite being completely in the right about this, and despite only correcting your very egregious error here, but even so it’s not a pretty thing to keep on doing beyond a point -- and so, after this last comment I’ll stop doing that, for now at any rate.

You’re completely totally mistaken about, like, everything you’ve said in that short comment of yours.

First: No, Buddhists don’t have some “place” called Nirvana; and they most emphatically don’t equate Nirvana with God. To actual practicing Buddhists, Nirvana simply means cessation, and Nirvana refers to the state of being of the practitioner, the meditator, who’s overcome desire, and therefore attained cessation of the impulse towards extraversion.

That comes with some superstitions involving rebirth and cessation therefrom, as well, which is obviously all nonsense; but it can, from a secular perspective, be viewed as a psychological state; and in any case, no matter which perspective you’re coming from, the woo-laden or the secular, but in neither case is Nirvana a “place”, or in any way connected with God as the word is commonly understood.

(Qualification to the above: I’m referring here to Theravada Buddhism, as actually practiced, as well as most major strands of Buddhism that I’m familiar with. I’m adding this qualification here in order to be extra scrupulous about one thing: Some extra woo-woo versions of Buddhism, Pure Land for instance, do go in for different planes of existence, that sort of thing.

As far as I know Nirvana isn’t one of those planes, Nirvana refers to cessation of existence beyond those planes; but I’m not overly familiar with those branches of Buddhism, and it is possible I may be mistaken. Probably no-one looks on Nirvana as a place; and on the off chance that some whackjob sects do, then these would at most be a very small minority and most assuredly not representative of Buddhists in general. And none of them equate Nirvana with God.)

Second: No one defines God as “I am that I am”, or as love. The former is a cryptic answer by the deity of the Old Testament to Moses, and the latter is a poetic reference to what some believe is an attribute of God. But neither of those amounts to a definition, not as the word “definition” itself is commonly understood.

Third: That last paragraph of yours, comprising those two sentences, is a jaw-dropping instance of misdirection. I don’t say you’re being deliberately disingenuous; and quite possibly you’re deluding yourself here, rather than lying on purpose to try to obfuscate things for your readers here; but the end result is exactly the same.

That last sentence is fine: agreed, God does mean different things to different people, and no one can insist on one single definition that everyone must accept. But as for the sentence preceding that: no, people don’t get to define God in any random way they like, most emphatically not.

I can’t just go and define my neighbor’s dog as God, and claim that God is born, and that God will die in the next ten or fifteen years at most (unless He happens to die before that of illness or from some accident), and that God barks and yips and pees on bushes, and that when God is horny He will hump any likely bitch He can lay His paws on.

That’s patently ridiculous. You can’t just make up your own random definition like that -- or at least, while you *can* do that, in the sense that no one is going to shoot you in the head if you do it, but it’s completely nonsensical to use words that way.

Fourth: Don’t forget that when Aquinas used those arguments, he was referring to the Christian God. This is transparent sleight of hand. In fact, this is a classic motte-and-bailey gambit: where you introduce an innocuous-sounding uber-milquetoast version of your thesis, speaking of God merely as “first mover” -- a definition that no Christian actually believed in, and nor did Aquinas himself, we can be sure of that -- and then surreptitiously slip in all of the baggage that goes with the word God, like consciousness and intelligence (and also, in Aquinas’s case, omnipotence, and omniscience, and omnibenevolence) without actually making the case for all of that.

That’s plain disingenuous, that’s plain dishonest. Aquinas should have been ashamed of himself, for trying to bamboozle the gullible amongst his audience like that.

And finally: As I’ve already shown in my previous comment, even if for the sake of argument I should grant you that very dodgy definition of God, even then it simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Because those using Aquinas’s argument -- you, for instance -- basically employ not one but TWO strawmen simultaneously: first, in how you define God; and two, in how you describe the current scientific consensus on the origin of the cosmos. I’ve discussed that clearly, if briefly, in my previous comment, and will not repeat that here.

Sorry, that whole Aquinas crap you’re trying to slip in here is completely totally fully mistaken, and transparently so, from beginning to end.

Here's the previous comment by Appreciative Reader that he mentioned above.

Are we doing Aquinas again? That man was brilliant for his times, if disingenuous and deluded; but anyone who swallows his infantile nonsense today is a complete idiot. What is a strawman argument is the idea that something arose from nothing.

As has been pointed out, quantum fluctuations have existed forever, eternally -- should you favor that model. Defining God as the uncaused first principle is, again, what is dishonest, disingenuous, a fabrication, a lie. That is Aquinas's definition, but not how God is actually defined. He also needs, at the very least, to be intelligent and conscious -- not to mention a host of other things as well, including omniscient, and omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

Without those attributes, you don't get God, certainly not the Christian God, and not any God I know of. Not only is your definition of God dicey, but even that dicey definition does not hold up to the gotcha you fondly imagine it is.

There are many cosmological models. Quantum fluctuations birthing just the one universe is just one of them. If you define God as quantum fluctuations, that is plain wrong, a lie: because no religion defines God like that, and you are simply piggy backing on science shamelessly and distorting the end results of science.

And in any case that does not correspond with the more detailed cosmological models, like multiverses, and bubble universes, and so forth. There may well have been NOT ONE SINGLE, UNITARY CREATIVE PRINCIPLE, BUT A HOST OF THEM. Again, for his times Aquinas was fairly smart; but those who swear by him today are ignorant morons.

The difference between ChatGPT and religious poseurs is that the former has the honesty to clearly admit its error/s when pointed out, and the decency to apologize. Religious propagandists, on the other hand, simply turn tail when their lies are exposed, only to return another day with those same lies; and nor have they the decency to apologize. Stop flogging that idiotic Aquinas nonsense.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Hmmm,
This is how Appreciative Reader's argument comes across to me. I have taken this passage directly from the Critical analysis section of the motte-and-bailey fallacy entry in Wikipedia:

"Responding to Shackel's use of the motte-and-bailey concept, professor of rhetoric Randy Allen Harris objected to what he saw as the use of the concept to gratuitously violate the principle of charity by distorting other people's arguments and failing to understand the other's position beyond what is required to attack it; Harris criticized such usage of the motte-and bailey concept for "avoiding a true fight" by portraying the other unfairly, which Harris called the "offensive corollary" of the other's retreat to the defensive motte. In other word's, the person who attacks someone else for retreating to the motte could be "just as guilty" of retreating to a "siege engine" instead of engaging in a deeper dialogue with the other "out on the bailey". Harris pleaded for a rhetorical analysis that would explore disagreements more carefully and respectfully." I would like to place emphasis on "respectfully".
Appreciative Reader, please go back and look at the amount of derogatory words/remarks/terms embedded in your argument/response. Why argue if you are that frustrated with the other? Just my opinion. I will end it there.

[Appreciative Reader]

Why argue? Well, surely the answer to that Why, is to arrive at and to establish the truth, as best we can? I mean, there are secondary reasons as well, like establishing fellow feeling, like pleasantly spending the time of day, and so on, and all valid enough reasons; but surely the whole point of discussions like this is to, like I said, arrive at and establish and understand what is true, as best we can?

As for respect: I submit that I'd be disrespecting him more if I treated him as some kind of retard or some child, who is somehow intellectually incapable of appreciating the whole breadth of issues that the rest of us can. I know I'd be insulted, and offended, if someone were to condescend to me in that manner. I do him the courtesy and offer him the respect of treating him as intellectually at par with anyone else. To treat him with kid gloves, or to ignore him, as if he were somehow not capable of adult understanding and discussion, surely that is what would really be disrespectful?

The motte-and-bailey thing, that's a perspective I haven't seen discussed before this. Thanks for raising it. I'd be interested to see an example of how the reverse might work. (That's okay, I can look it up myself. Although if you've anything readily available, perhaps you could share that.)

But to simply point out that something might conceivably be misused is very different than actually misusing it, surely? I haven't used the term merely to mis-label his argument and to dismiss it. I've clearly showed how the argument -- Aquinas's argument -- is wanting, and brought up the term because it seemed an apposite description of what was going on there.

But, all of that said, I agree, flogging some issue beyond the point of civility does amount of asshattery of a kind. That kind of thing is all too common in Internet discussions, unfortunately -- heh, along with every other kind of asshattery. As you see I've already said, in my second comment, that I'll desist from that.

But I agree, I might have used gentler language in my initial comment. I could well have expressed myself more gently, while not diluting the content of what I had to say. I think I corrected myself in my subsequent comment, but there is truth in what you say as far as that aspect of my initial comment. It is always better to be gentle and courteous, than not. Mea culpa, as far as that much.

[SantMat64]

The proof of God is very simple: A something or a someone must be responsible for creating the universe from nothing.

This proof drives atheists crazy, as they have no answer for how the universe came to be. Or at least, they have no good answer to the fact of existence -- it's the fact beyond all facts. This exists, you exists, and thus God exists.

As for precise definition of God, it's the atheists who insist on disqualifying definitions. Whenever this topic of God arises, AR immediately assumes someone is making an argument for Christianity. Nope, not so AR. This is about the material fact that we know there are 200 billion planetary systems in the Milky Way, and that we can see 300 billion galaxies besides our own. In other words, the fact alone that this utterly vast creation exists and must have had a beginning from absolutely nothing is the argument that needs no further explication. It must be that something or someone of tremendous intelligence created all this.

Then there's the miracle of life, and no scientist has yet come up with any plausible theories on how that came to be.

Then there's the infinitely precise and harmonious laws of physics, of biology, all orchestrating the world as we know it. Here too, science has no answers for where these laws and generative powers came from.

It takes a kind of atheistic faith to believe that all of the above essentially "just happened," created and generated itself from absolutely nothing. And paradoxically, it's a view that's actually anti-science.

That is, unless the day comes when science tells us it knows how everything came from nothing. Then, "complete idiot" that I am, I will stand corrected.

[um]

@ Santmat 64

Why do you want a god to be there?
Why?

Do you need something from him, her, it or that?
Does not everything that exists is self sufficient?

If you were not told by others would you ever have known even to write the word God?

[Appreciative Reader]

SM64, you’re doing the God of the Gaps thing there. Yet again.

As Dawkins has explained, with remarkable clarity, in his God Delusion, Darwin has put paid to that intelligent design nonsense once and for all. You look at something as complex as the human eye, or indeed the even more complex eyes that some other creatures have, and cannot but fall into the conclusion, the certainty, that some intelligent being must have created this. And yet, as Darwin and his successors have shown conclusively and with detailed evidence, random mutations and natural selection can actually explain this without invoking any Creator.

This brings about a paradigm shift deeper than perhaps any other, in the sense that it debunks the inevitability of intelligent design. While similar evidence has not yet been uncovered in the world of physics in general and cosmology in particular, but what Darwin has shown is that intelligent isn’t the inevitability it appeared to be before his discovery and formulation of the theory of evolution.

(And, in any case, and apart from all of that, don’t forget: Positing a Creator blithely sidesteps the question, Whence did this Creator Dude come from? If you’re comfortable with positing a super intelligent and super capable Creator without the first clue of His antecedents, or suggesting that He’s always been there, well then why not skip a step, and posit the same thing for whatever secondary phenomenon you’re trying to explain? The one is no more credible than the other, even from an intuitive standpoint --- not that human intuition is a particularly reliable yardstick, as we’ve discussed in the past. And again, and not to forget: If you’re going to posit a Creator, then why just one? Why not two? Why not twenty? Why not a million billion Creators? I don’t know how you can miss the complete absurdity of what you’re suggesting here.)

---

True, there are questions we’ve still not answered. The origin of life, for one. The origin of the cosmos. But to try to find God in these ever shrinking areas of ignorance is to step into God of the Gaps territory. We’ve been through this already, haven’t we? You guys, I don’t know, you hear these things clearly explained, but it’s like talking to a fucking wall. You have no coherent answer, and yet you disappear when these arguments are put to you, only to return the next day, or the next week or next month, to rinse and repeat and rehash your same tired non-arguments as if the earlier discussions hadn’t taken place at all.

I’m going to try one last time to get through to you on this, with the aid of an analogy. But before I do that, let me address an incidental issue you bring up:

No, I don’t actually conclude that commenters are trying to plug for the Christian God every time. It’s just that the commenter 12-Years-More happened to be regurgitating Aquinas here, under the guise of his Chatbot nonsense; and Aquinas himself was a Christian theologian, and without a shadow of doubt was trying to find a logical argument in defense of the Christian God (and in the process clearly resorting to a disingenuous motte-and-bailey ---- not that he was able to coherently defend even his milquetoast fig-leaf position, but still, that was clearly what he was trying to do).

Okay, like I said, for the last time I’ll try to show you, SM64, the absurdity of the God of the Gaps fallacy you keep committing:

---

Say there’s a Jack the Ripper running loose, hacking and killing women plying what is apparently the most ancient trade. And police detectives go around meticulously collecting the evidence and building up a case about the murders.

Basis their investigations, they establish that all of those killings are likely committed by the same serial killer. Plus they establish a certain pattern to those killings. They actually solve much of the mystery, in terms of the methods used. They've gone so far as to even be able to pre-empt, and to prevent, some killings. But they’re unable, so far, to actually identify who the killer is (much like the original Jack the Ripper).

So there’s a great deal they’ve actually uncovered evidence for, the detectives, a great deal they’ve found out. But, although they’ve build up a sound case basis sound evidence, but there’s two things: first, all of that is provisional, in the sense that further evidence may yet make them change their mind; and second, they’ve not yet actually identified who the killer is, and why exactly he’s out killing these women.

…So then, what happens next? Some guy comes along and loudly proclaims that these killings are being carried out by Bigfoot. Soon he draws a following of gullible fools, and a theology grows up all around his wild proclamations. You end up with a “theology” of this fantastic creature, that sometimes manifests as Bigfoot, and elsewhere as the Loch Ness monster, and yet elsewhere as the Yeti. And it is imbued with a keen moral sense, and is outraged by women who have sex outside of marriage and for money. (Only women, for some reason; for some reason, men doing the same thing leave it unmoved.) So it goes around wreaking retribution, and trying to cleanse the world of sin and debauchery, by killing these poor helpless girls.

And the followers of this original crackpot-and/or-charlaton argue, as you do: You detectives, you evidence-fetishists, you still don’t know who exactly Jack the Ripper is, do you? You still don’t know his actual motivation, do you? Therefore, we posit: Our Bigfoot-of-the-Gaps.

Don’t you see why they’re wrong? The “evidence-fetishists” that these weirdos hold in contempt, it is true that they don’t know all. But they do know a great deal. And, more importantly, what they surmise so far, they have a sound evidential basis for so theorizing. And, most importantly, what they don’t know no one else does either! That the detectives don’t know some things does not lend any credence at all to this random and completely unevidenced declaration about Bigfoot.

And that, SM64, is exactly what your God-of-the-Gaps amounts to. Science has helped us uncover a great many things. True, all of these things uncovered by science are provisional in nature; also true, some of those things are counter-intuitive in nature, like QM for instance; and equally true, there’s some basic things that we’ve not yet been able to find out via science, and these things we might one day find out, or it could be that we might never ever find out those things. But regardless, none of those lacks, none of those shortcomings, lend any kind of credibility to the random and completely unevidenced ipse-dixitisms about and around God that keep on being flung around. What we don’t know via science, no one else knows either. God-did-it is a completely nonsensical answer, because there is zero evidence for that claim; and it is a non-answer, because it only introduces a bigger problem about the provenance and the whys and wherefores of this God thing.

I don’t know how or why this simple thing does not get across to the likes of you, despite being so clearly explained, time and time again; and how on earth you can keep returning every few days or weeks and regurgitating the same unevidenced nonsense, as if these things have never been said. Frankly I’m completely at a loss to understand the mentality of otherwise no doubt fully functioning intellects, that are somehow unable to grok this very simple argument.

---

TLDR: Yeah, God of the Gaps, one more time.

[Osho Robbins]

@Appreciative Reader,
I put your argument (april 17 08:15) into chatgpt : and it says its a well presented argument

The argument presented is primarily focused on the fallacy of the "God of the gaps," which is the idea that God is invoked to explain gaps in scientific knowledge or phenomena that cannot be explained by natural processes. The argument claims that invoking God in this way is a fallacy, as it sidesteps the question of where God came from and is not supported by evidence.

The argument also asserts that Darwin's theory of evolution has debunked the inevitability of intelligent design, and that positing a Creator is no more credible than positing any other phenomenon without evidence. The author argues that finding God in areas of ignorance is a fallacy and that it is analogous to the fallacy of the "Bigfoot of the gaps," in which Bigfoot is invoked to explain unsolved mysteries.

Overall, the argument is well-presented and well-supported, although it is also somewhat polemical and dismissive of opposing viewpoints.

[Osho Robbins]

This comment by SantMat64 | April 17, 2023 at 03:40 PM
which starts with "The proof of God is very simple:"

I gave it to chatgpt to evaluate. this is the reply. ChatGpt has spoken:

The argument presented in this passage is known as the cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe must have had a cause, and that cause is God. This argument has been debated for centuries and has been criticized for its assumption that everything must have a cause, as well as for its inability to provide evidence for the existence of God.

Additionally, the argument misrepresents the views of atheists by suggesting that they believe the universe came from "nothing." In fact, many atheists hold the position that they do not know how the universe came into existence, but that does not necessarily imply that a god must be responsible.

Furthermore, the argument assumes that the universe was created from nothing, which is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. The theory suggests that the universe began as a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature, which then expanded rapidly in a process known as inflation.

Finally, the argument equates science with the existence of God, which is not a scientific claim. Science is a process of understanding the natural world through empirical evidence and observation, while the existence of God is a matter of faith and belief.

Therefore, while the argument presented in this passage may appeal to some people, it is not a sound logical argument and relies on misconceptions and assumptions.

[Appreciative Reader]

"@Appreciative Reader,
I put your argument (april 17 08:15) into chatgpt : and it says its a well presented argument"

Hello, Osho Robbins. Do convey my thank-you-kindly to ChatGPT, and shake its hand for me when you meet it next. :--)

---

"The argument presented is primarily focused on the fallacy of the "God of the gaps," which is the idea that God is invoked to explain gaps in scientific knowledge or phenomena that cannot be explained by natural processes. The argument claims that invoking God in this way is a fallacy, as it sidesteps the question of where God came from and is not supported by evidence.

The argument also asserts that Darwin's theory of evolution has debunked the inevitability of intelligent design, and that positing a Creator is no more credible than positing any other phenomenon without evidence. The author argues that finding God in areas of ignorance is a fallacy and that it is analogous to the fallacy of the "Bigfoot of the gaps," in which Bigfoot is invoked to explain unsolved mysteries."

Yep, that does sum it up, I guess, concisely enough and without leaving any essential bits out. Cool.

---

"Overall, the argument is well-presented and well-supported, although it is also somewhat polemical and dismissive of opposing viewpoints.

Posted by: Osho Robbins | April 17, 2023 at 09:12 PM"

Sure it is dismissive of the opposing viewpoint presented here, because that opposing viewpoint is completely nonsensical, and to dismiss that nonsense was the whole point of the argument.

And sure it is somewhat polemical, and somewhat touched with asperity and impatience (even thought I've tried to tone it down and keep it civil), because, and like I said, it's like talking to a fucking wall. They listen to these things said, and come back with weak non-responses, or else keep mum; and then disappear for a space; and then back they come, like clockwork, to rinse and repeat that same asinine nonsense, as if these discussions had never taken place at all. It baffles me, this complete lack of intellectual integrity, of coherence, and of simple recall.

---

But, heh, not to worry, I'll stand back now. I don't know if this last comment of mine will get through to SM64 finally; or if he'll simply ignore it, just like 12-Months-More seems to have ignored my equally clearly presented argument and gone back to blithely repeating his nonsense in that other thread.

That's fine, let them do that if that's what makes them happy. I have no wish to police this space, and nor am I particularly interested in actually changing anyone's mind, really. It's just that addressing these arguments gives me a chance to test my own thinking on this; and, given that in their place I'd gladly accept a sound argument that corrects me on something, I kind of end up expecting the same from others, and end up baffled when that doesn't happen. I mean, I can understand, for instance, the GSDs of the world, who fill their fat freeloading bellies basis this nonsense, that motivation is clear as day; but what I don't understand is the continued subservience to this kind of nonsense of the likes of his followers, and of the followers and proponents of other kinds of woo, who don't themselves derive personal profit from that sort of thing, and yet insist on sticking with that nonsense even when very clearly shown how nonsensical is their position.

WTF, it is what it is. Like I said, I've said my piece, and am content to step back now.

[12 months left]

AR

Your argument misses one crucial piece on which everything else depends. When you say for example a “quantum fluctuation” (or anything else) “happens,” you are saying something “exists.” Nothing can “happen” without existence first. That is the very definition of “happen.”

So to say, “something HAPPENED and then the universe came into being,” you jumped over the first step. You said, something was there and it produced more ...

But how did something get there out of nonexistence? This is a logical flaw. Some people think if we just make it atomically small maybe no one will notice we started with SOMETHING.

“Something happened and it created the Universe.” NO NO NO. From nonexistence nothing happened. I don’t care how small you want to make it. Not a quantum fluctuation, not a probability quark. Nonexistence has no possibility of producing any of those things. To have something, you have to start with something. Spontaneous production of existence from nonexistence is illogical and impossible. There is no logical way around that fact.

[um]

Probably the grammatical structure of language, being born out of biological necessities of survival, is dualistic, based upon cause and effect.

With that tool it is probably impossible to convey thoughts and concepts, that are non-dualistic.

As a small metaphor the difference in what and how eyes of different animals can perceive.

Sometimes I write about things "given" to humans to express the idea that the human HAS something without knowing its origin and/or how it came into existence. ...like life for example. .In order to prevent misunderstanding about what I want to convey, I add to it ... that doesn't mean there is a GIVER, it is just to say that what he has is beyond himself. in terms of causality etc.

Whatever we have as human beings, the body in all its details, the brain include is related to survival as a human in circumstances of his choice, a choice only humans have and no other species.

Language does not allow humans to find answers about questions related to its origin. Whatever is said in an attempt to do so whoever he is, however mentally developed, it bust be a distortion. => probably for that simple reason those we consider as the great thinkers of humanity all cried out ...do not speak about what cannot be spoken of.

P.S.
The indigenous people do not have words for everything related to the global transport of information. However intelligent etc and with the best effort their language does not allow them to do so. Their language was born in the forest etc. That is their habitat. Language is born from an habitat.

[12 months left]

Hi Um,

Yes, you said a mouthful. English, created by barbarians has difficulty communicating higher philosophical ideas, definitely.

I’ve noticed that quite often people intermix the idea of the creation of appearances with the creation of existence itself.

Existence itself either always was or was created by nonexistence which is impossible. Those are the only choices and one of them is out. Thus we are left with “that which always was.”

Once we have that... well then how the rest of it, planets, multiverses, universes, quarks and quantum fluctuation happened is just mechanics. Two separate issues that always seem to get conflated in these discussions.

[um]

@ !2

It is not a question of that language being due to barbarians invading the island... barbarians according to my father, eternal peace be upon his soul, are ALL living on the other side, to the North to be clear ... hahaha, of the alps.

All languages are survival tools like eyes, legs, brains etc. These tools all lose their functionality, meaning outside the domain of survival of the individual and species.

Compare it with Aikido .. the "power" each person can use is limited by the circles he can describe with his arms and legs. He might have all sorts of power but they do naturally end at the tip of his hands with the arm stretched.

Legs are to move, in a direction and goal. Language is gramatically describing the action, the actor and the goal of the action. ...it is for that reason causal. and dual

It cannot be used OUTSIDE that domain it even cannot know whether there is an outside.

These are just words that pop up in my mind during writing and have no scientific nor spiritual meaning or value attached to them ... it is just a matter of common sense. ... making sense to me, not necessarily to anybody else ... and ... who knows it is all colored by drinking coffee. hahaha

We have nothing to say about the creation, let alone a before.

We are here and now, that is all there is ...surviving, existing ...realizing that only OTHERS are born and die ...those that witness birth and death of others do not have themselves any knowledge of being born or dying.

Language and everything that was born from it, is just a tool to help us survive and live in the natural and cultural surroundings we happen to be in.

Religion political concepts, the whole construct of culture is just an help. It is as the steel cables in the mountain to help the walker transfer a difficult passage. The cable is dead by itself and meaningless .. what matters are those that use it for their own purpose. It is alright to discuss whether the cable could be place in a different position and in a different way but one should not indulge in it and make it more important than the walking itself.

[Appreciative Reader]

“AR

Your argument misses one crucial piece on which everything else depends. When you say for example a “quantum fluctuation” (or anything else) “happens,” you are saying something “exists.” Nothing can “happen” without existence first. That is the very definition of “happen.”

So to say, “something HAPPENED and then the universe came into being,” you jumped over the first step. You said, something was there and it produced more ...

But how did something get there out of nonexistence? This is a logical flaw. Some people think if we just make it atomically small maybe no one will notice we started with SOMETHING.

“Something happened and it created the Universe.” NO NO NO. From nonexistence nothing happened. I don’t care how small you want to make it. Not a quantum fluctuation, not a probability quark. Nonexistence has no possibility of producing any of those things. To have something, you have to start with something. Spontaneous production of existence from nonexistence is illogical and impossible. There is no logical way around that fact.”

Posted by: 12 months left | April 17, 2023 at 11:31 PM

-----------------

#facepalm !!

I’m sorry, I shouldn’t be “dismissive” of your attempt to engage with me sincerely --- at least, I hope this comment is sincere, and not simply an attempt to yank my chain as it were! --- but I’ve already addressed this, haven’t I, 12-Months-Left?

You don’t even need to look far: just in this thread alone, in the two comments of mine addressed to you that Brian’s put up in his leader blog post --- Thanks, Brian, for that, and for your very kind words! --- and in my comment addressed to Sant-Mat-64 about the God of the Gaps. Do you really need to me go through that again? I’ll only be repeating myself if I do that.

But no matter. I’ll go with the assumption that your question is sincerely asked, and your comment sincerely made, and I’ll address it accordingly, briefly, the repetition notwithstanding. (And, as you see, I’ve taken the liberty of copying your entire comment up there, in full, for context and ease of reference.)

1. You’re strawmanning the scientific argument here, one more time. No one is saying that the quantum fluctuation materialized out of nothingness. What is being hypothesized, in accordance, approximately, with evidence available so far, is this whole quantum field, these quantum fluctuations. They may well have existed forever, eternally, back from eternity and forward unto eternity, endlessly, whyever not? It’s *you* who’s claiming that it materialized out of nowhere, and it’s you who’s then protesting that that is an impossibility. That is a textbook strawman, right there.

2. In any case, what on earth has this to do with God? Regardless of whether science is able to answer these questions, or is unable to --- and that fact is that it has, indeed, gone a long way in answering them, but regardless of that --- how does that make random ipse-dixitisms about God at all credible? That, there, is another instance of textbook God-of-the-Gaps that you’re implying, right there. Read again my God-of-the-Gaps comment addressed to Sant-Mat-64, for a more detailed discussion of this aspect of the question.

3. Not to forget: The quantum fluctuation, and our one single universe arising from it, is just one hypothesis. There are other, more detailed ones, as well, involving multiverses, as well as bubble universes (possibly within certain categories of black holes, each with its own Big-Bang equivalent), and so forth. As far as I know, current consensus does not postulate literally nothingness, and the cosmos (or some precursor to the cosmos) materializing within that nothingness. What you’re objecting to, is a misconception of your own formulation.

4. All of these scientific hypotheses are predicated on properly assessing the evidence. Whether or not they appear intuitive (or “logical”) to you or I, that is completely irrelevant. I’ve said this before, indeed I’ve said everything I’m saying in this comment before, like I said you’re making me repeat what I’ve already said here more than once: but our intuition is a faculty shaped by evolution, and is predicated on the conditions encountered by Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the course of its development in the forests of Africa, and elsewhere after that. Is it any wonder that the broader reality of the nano-realm, and of the larger cosmos, should be completely alien to these conditions, and therefore completely counter-intuitive? Take QM: no one really “understands” it, not even those who are involved in cutting-edge research in it; and yet, because the evidence is incontrovertible, therefore we accept it. You’ve heard the adage, surely, “Shut up and calculate!”? The point is, whether it seems “logical” to you, is completely totally entirely irrelevant, as long as the evidence supports what is being hypothesized. No matter how many times I say this, you seem completely unable to understand this simple argument.

5. Finally, and to kind of revisit what I’d said in #2 above: None of this lends any credence to your ideas about God. To begin with, there is no evidence for any of it. Besides, what you’re postulating has those exact same shortcomings that you complain about in scientific hypotheses: a God that either existed forever, or a God that materialized out of nowhere. Where is the explanation for this God creature? And why just one God? Why not two hundred thousand billion Gods rampaging around? This is infantile nonsense, your ideas about God, from beginning to end! None of it is remotely plausible; and in any case there is zero evidence for any of it.

-----------------

There’s no way to make this any clearer. You’ve asked your question sincerely, at least I hope you have asked it sincerely, which is why I’ve taken the trouble to answer you as clearly as I could, even though I’m only repeating what I’ve said already in this thread.

Does any of this make sense? Do you at least begin to see, now, the error in your thinking and in your reasoning?

[SantMat64]

AR: The argument for God I submitted has nothing to do with arguments related to intelligent design. Dawkins' explanations about the mechanism of evolution do not touch upon my argument either. That's because this is not a matter of material phenomena, or of gaps. it's a matter or the most primal origins.

Here again is the argument: Before, there was nothing. Now, there is the universe, and life. Something or someone is responsible for that, and that someone or something deserves the title God.

No scientist, not even Dawkins, has a clue as to how the universe began, or how life began. On the other hand, we, all of us, are forever surrounded by evidence shouting to our senses and heart that we, and all we survey, are, in our earliest antecedents, the result of a wonderous miracle -- literally a miracle of something out of nothing. Something from nothing cannot be anything less than a miracle. Something from nothing isn't a phenomena known to any part of science. I think it's fair to assume that the agent responsible for this miracle is God.

One may protest as the Deists did that perhaps a callous God created everything (or at least set the stage for the universe to create itself from a seed of divine intent. LIfe is cruel and short, no one can argue against that. And yet, even if one rejects the idea of a personal God, even the Buddhist would agree that the universe itself has provided agency for the atheist to realize underlying bliss and oneness. The Buddhist doesn't want to call this agency God, and that's his choice. I'd just ask him from whence that agency of liberation came from.

[Appreciative Reader]

Oh, it’s you now, SantMat64. I thought when I read this comment that it was the other guy, who goes by 12-Months-Left. But now when I check out your comment again as I type down my response, it seems you're that other guy. You do seem to speak so very similarly, both your content, and your delivery as well.

Regardless of whether you’re two different guys, or the same guy alternating with those two pseudonyms, but I have this very strong suspicion that you’re simply yanking my chain here. If so, then well played. I did suspect it, even while typing my previous comment addressed to 12-Months-Left, but I’ll admit that the thought did not cross my mind before that; and, in any case, you did get me to reply nonetheless, and now get me to do it again again. So, well played, if this was intended as a joke. Not that it is April 1st today, but still.

No, I’m not falling for it one more time. While I do address your comment now, but I’m not going to be tricked into launching into yet another earnest and lengthy response, repeating the same things for the third time in this thread. Just read all of my comments in this thread, and you’ll get your answer clearly there.

But I *will* put in these points, to assist your looking up those comments again, just in case this is all in earnest:

1. The very first sentence of your argument is wrong, there was never “nothing”, there were quantum fluctuations (limiting ourselves, for now, to that particular hypothesis).

2. What you’ve presented is EXACTLY the intelligent-design argument. Word to word, exactly. So that the rebuttal of it that I'd presented earlier is spot on. If you don’t understand any specific parts of the rebuttal, or if you don’t agree with any specific part of the rebuttal, then by all means point it out clearly, and I’ll be happy to work it out together along with you, absolutely. But I’m not going to repeat the whole thing all over again a third time now, no.

3. The only way your argument wouldn’t be the Intelligent Design argument, as you claim it isn’t, would be if you’re not claiming that God is intelligent. Is that what you’re doing? With Aquinas that was a transparent motte-and-bailey; but if you honestly stop right at merely labeling the primordial something as “God”, well, logically that would seem all right, I guess. Except I don’t see what would be the point of that.

Is that what you’re arguing here? Limiting ourselves to the quantum fluctuations hypothesis, are you suggesting that you want to label these quantum fluctuations as God? Is that what you’re saying? That rather than use the term "quantum fluctuations" you'd prefer to use the term "God" instead?

I really don’t see the point of that. But okay, I’ll go along with you, I’ll agree to humor you. Those lifeless, dumb, quantum fluctuations, lacking consciousness, lacking intelligence, I’ll agree with you and call them “God”, just to see where this goes.

But keep in mind that this “God”, although you use the same word, has nothing to do with any kind of God that any religion has ever posited. This is just your own idiosyncratic and random definition. Keep that in mind.

So, in your thinking, the quantum fluctuations are God. Fair enough.

What now? What comes next? What was the point of this?

(And mind you, this isn’t an “argument for God”. This is merely a redefinition of God. Redefinition, not argument. A redefinition of God, into something no religion has ever proposed, ever.)

Go on, then: You’ve (re-)defined the primal soup, the quantum fluctuations, as God. Now what?

[12 months left]

Hi AR
You previously wrote that you were done commenting on this but here we are again.

1. You apparently say that the logic side of it is of no interest to you. Ok. You want evidence. Sensory evidence? We can’t put “existence” under the microscope or create tangible measurements so for evidence we have to rely on reports from qualified professionals and even regular people. Here is one of countless reports being posted every day. This one by a medical professional of his direct experience that consciousness is deathless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=delYrzd3UGU

2. What does this have to do with God. I think our brilliant logician chatgpt is able to answer that question in its usual flawless way:

Q:
You seem to be saying that the only logical explanation for how we exist is that something always existed, correct?

CHATGPT:
Based on the premise that non-existence cannot produce existence, then the logical conclusion would be that something always existed.

Q: Our logical conclusion is that something always existed. what possible names could we give "that which always was."

CHATGPT:
From a purely logical perspective, we cannot assign any names or attributes to that which always existed because we have no empirical evidence or information about it other than the fact that it exists. We cannot even say if it is a single entity or a collection of entities. Therefore, any names or attributes would be purely speculative and not based on any logical or empirical evidence.

Q:
I guess we could call it, "I am that I am," and that would be somewhat correct.

CHATGPT:
"I am that I am" is a phrase often used to refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Abrahamic religions. While it is a valid interpretation, it is important to note that the phrase has various interpretations and meanings across different religions and philosophical systems. In any case, the concept of "that which always was" or "eternal existence" is a complex and abstract concept, and different cultures and traditions have used different names and concepts to refer to it.
Q:
What are some of the names different cultures and traditions have used for "that which always was?"

CHATGPT:
Different cultures and traditions have used various names to refer to "that which always was," often in the context of a higher power or divine being. Some examples include:

Brahman in Hinduism
Allah in Islam
Yahweh in Judaism
God in Christianity
Tao in Taoism
Buddha-nature in Buddhism
The Great Spirit or the Creator in many Native American traditions
The Absolute in philosophy
There are many more examples, as different cultures and traditions have developed their own concepts and names for the ultimate reality or source of existence.

Q:
Do atheists have a name for that which always was?

CHATGPT:
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities or gods, so there is no single answer to this question as atheists have different beliefs and ideas about the origin of the universe and existence. Some atheists might refer to "that which always was" as the universe itself or the laws of nature, while others might simply acknowledge that the question of the origin of existence is currently unanswered.

Q:
But the question is not unanswered since we just acknowledged that existence could not have an origin and had to be always there.

CHATGPT:
That is correct. From a logical standpoint, if we accept the premise that nonexistence cannot create existence and we observe that we do in fact exist, the only conclusion is that something has always existed. This logical possibility suggests that existence itself is uncreated and eternal. However, some people may still debate this conclusion or hold different beliefs.

[Appreciative Reader]

I wrote that I was done commenting, in terms of seeking out and commenting on your nonsense as generally posted here. After all you did not start out specifically addressing me, nor the other gent; it is I who proactively addressed your comments here. Which is my right, in a public forum; but that is what I referred to, in my comment to Osho Robbins, what I'd desist from for now.

Since you, and the other guy, then addressed me directly, I extended to you the courtesy, and the consideration, of engagement. Despite the completely asinine nature of your subsequent comments, that bespoke either an apparent incapacity at reading comprehension and following simple reasoning, or else brazen disingenuity. And here you are now, criticizing me for, or at any rate sardonically commenting about, my responding to your comments directly addressed to me? Amazing, man, your thought process, every bit of it.

All right, then. You seem unable to follow simple reasoning, or else pretend not to be able to. Nor do you seem at all interested in honestly and cogently exploring this issue. And nor do you seem to even value this exchange, or appreciate this engagement. No reason, then, why I shouldn't bow out completely, and refrain from responding to even such comments as you address to me.

-------

Apologies if some of what I said seemed less than cordial. It's just, like I said, this complete lack of coherence and of intellectual integrity baffles me. Nothing against you personally, man. Nor is it any business of mine, really, what you believe; and no reason why I should want to change that.

I'd like to shake hands and part friends. We disagree, disagree fundamentally and completely about this question; but no reason to keep on and on at that disagreement, after all.

So yeah, carry on. You have it all here, in this thread, my thoughts on this issue. Now, or afterwards, you're free to re-examine your beliefs in light of them, if you like. Or not, your call entirely.

Cheers, then. No hard feelings, I hope.

[12 months left]

Hi AR,

In my previous comment here I was addressing your viewpoint since you mentioned you were done with the discussion, and I wasn’t suggesting that you should not keep providing your thoughts here or anywhere else.

This last comment of yours, certainly was grounds for thought and since we have such a brilliant logician at hand I asked it/him about the points I thought you were trying to make.

Q:
Why do people engage in ad hominem arguments?

CHATGPT:
Ad hominem arguments are a type of logical fallacy where one attacks the character, personal traits, or circumstances of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the substance of their argument itself. People may engage in ad hominem arguments for various reasons:

Lack of understanding: Some people may not have a clear understanding of the issue being discussed or lack the necessary knowledge to make a valid argument. In such cases, they may resort to personal attacks as a way to deflect attention from their own lack of understanding.

Emotional response: People may become emotionally invested in a particular issue and may feel threatened or attacked by opposing viewpoints. In such cases, they may resort to ad hominem attacks as a way to discredit their opponents and protect their own beliefs.

Cognitive biases: People may hold certain cognitive biases that make them more likely to engage in ad hominem arguments. For example, the confirmation bias can lead people to only seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs and to dismiss any opposing viewpoints as invalid.

Lack of respect: Some people may simply lack respect for others and may use ad hominem attacks as a way to assert their dominance or superiority in a given situation.

Overall, ad hominem arguments are generally considered ineffective and fallacious because they do not address the substance of the argument and instead focus on attacking the person making the argument.

[Daas]

What a waste of time.....

You guys are arguing or discussing the matter which can not be proved..
It's all about belief of the person, nothing else
To understand spirituality you don't need to go that deep.. spirituality is just like a child loves his mum or mum loves her child..no one teaches them this love and how to do it..it comes from within and very naturally.
So please keep your big talks and big words to satisfy yourself..

Also RSSB teaching has nothing its own Sachkhand etc concept came from Sikh gurus ..RSSB just took them for Thier own advantages..This organisation started with lies and will finish one day..as GSD put the last nail in its coffin by doing all financial fraud

I would say go out and enjoy your life..see the world..love and respect nature and humanity.. do your meditation whatever you believe.. thank you God (if there is any) for providing us this opportunity, spirituality will grow within you

[12 months left]

Hi Daas,
By suggesting we are discussing mere beliefs you may have missed the point entirely.

There are facts, beliefs, theories and falsehoods. There are logical facts, scientific facts and empirical facts. But facts are facts and are different from mere beliefs.

Love, is not a scientific fact, nor a logical fact but it could be argued to be an empirical fact, empirical in the sense it can be experienced.

Eternal existence is not a scientific fact. For many NDE’ers and psychedelic users it may be an emirical fact. That aside eternal existence is a logical fact.

Why it is a logical fact is simply stated that “nonexistence” is not a possible condition and as such could not have created existence. Since “existence” could not have created itself the only other logical possibility is that it always was.

If there is an argument on how this is faulty logic I would like to hear it but so far no coherent argument against it has been presented. Some have found this unsettling to their beliefs and have countered with ad hominen arguments but not addressed the logic.

There are logical facts. They are not the same as scientific facts or empirical facts, yet they are facts nonetheless. Humans are often irrational creatures and often facts mean nothing to them preferring emotional or irrational beliefs that go against logic. That’s fine. It is expected.