Here's proof of your God.

[Correa Neto]

Of course, and with a couple of questions...

Q.
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

A. I mean, Q.
Why do you think the "singular effects act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect"?

Why there is any need for a primordial cause?

Why can´t all this be just random?

How can you be sure that this is not a case of "I want to belive" or "I just can´t accept that there is no special purpose or meaning for my life"?

Why does to belive that oneself is actually God is not the uttermost manifestation of a highly bloated ego?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer


The creation of the perceived world is created by It (being the only cause).
Given the persistent order apparent in the sensations which It creates, the attribute of 'intelligence' is a must.



Why must persistent order equal intelligence?

Especially if that percieved order is (as you say) an illusion anyway.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hope you don't mind me saying this again, but:-
"Get on your knees you plonkers."

I don't mind. It's kinda cute. Like a 4 year old who says "I won!" over and over, for no good reason.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Q.
"(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?"

A. I mean, Q.
Why do you think the "singular effects act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect"?

By default, if there are no singular (absolutely so) causes for any effects, then all effects must be viewed as a product of collective causes (a "mechanism"). By default, "a mechanism" is viewed as a collective whole, such as the brain or an engine or the atom, etc..
Our [limited] understanding of mechanisms enables us to predict [many of] the effects of their ordered work/interaction.

Why there is any need for a primordial cause?

Your answer will be found in your inability to answer my question + my previous response to your previous question.

Why can´t all this be just random?

Why are the laws of physics so consistent? If the workings and produce of all mechanisms were random, then there would be no laws-of-physics... no science.

How can you be sure that this is not a case of "I want to belive" or "I just can´t accept that there is no special purpose or meaning for my life"?

I'm a [natural] philosopher mate. I never go to church... I'm not religious. Everything I say to you is a product of reason alone. If you want to refute my argument, then refute the reason behind it.
Note that amongst all of these questions of yours, you evaded answering that all-profound question by yourself. And given that [according to you] this question was refuted centuries ago (are you listening z-dragon?), I'm a bit perplexed as to why you simply didn't type the answer to that question directly, as espoused by these 'refut[i]eurs' of my [centuries-old] question.
Well?
Why bother with all these questions when you can simply paste the answer from some philosophical website?
Could it be that you told a porkie?

Why does to belive that oneself is actually God is not the uttermost manifestation of a highly bloated ego?
Because I'm telling you that you are God, also.
Lifegazer doesn't want to be worshipped by you. He wants you to worship the God within yourself.

[c4ts]

I gave up on lifegazer a while ago. Did he ever explain what his first post has to do with god?

[Z]

Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

IN other words, you're asking, why does anything happen, if there are no absolute original causes? Simply because they do.

Or are you asking how effects of other causes can combine to become the cause of new effects?

In fact, what the heck ARE you asking here? The question is senseless - and apparently irrelevant.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts
I gave up on lifegazer a while ago. Did he ever explain what his first post has to do with god?
Answer the question you plonker [of a human ego].
Do it or die. But don't dare think that this pathetic response constitutes a refutation to what I've just said.

I demand a reasonable answer to the question [in blue]. If I don't get one by the morrow, I shall start a new thread with that question as a proof for the existence of an [i]absolute cause.
With that proof, I have evidence for a non-spatial reality and of 'God' itself.
... Then, the game is virtually over.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Answer the question [in blue] you plonker [of a human ego].
Do it or die. But don't dare think that this pathetic response constitutes a refutation to what I've just said.

I demand a reasonable answer to the question . If I don't get one by the morrow, I shall start a new thread with that question as a proof for the existence of an [i]absolute cause.
With that proof, I have evidence for a non-spatial reality and of 'God' itself.
... Then, the game is virtually over.

I was just asking.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
IN other words, you're asking, why does anything happen, if there are no absolute original causes? Simply because they do.

Or are you asking how effects of other causes can combine to become the cause of new effects?

In fact, what the heck ARE you asking here? The question is senseless - and apparently irrelevant.
You're a plonker Z-dragon, but I can't help but like you.

There is no "randomness" in the effects yielded by the mechanisms that we behold: they all produce the same effects.
Hence, the laws of physics.

Something singular forces singular effects to act, collectively, as singular mechanisms that yield consistently-predictable singular effects.

This game is over.
Lucky for you all that it's very late in England so that I must go to bed very soon. That gives several hours to deter me starting a new thread with a proof which proves, beyond doubt, than an "ACA" (absolute causal-agent) doth exist.

Order 6 billion white robes or start looking for reasonable refutations to this profound realisation.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Answer the question [in blue] you plonker [of a human ego].
Do it or die. But don't dare think that this pathetic response constitutes a refutation to what I've just said.

I demand a reasonable answer to the question . If I don't get one by the morrow, I shall start a new thread with that question as a proof for the existence of an [i]absolute cause.
With that proof, I have evidence for a non-spatial reality and of 'God' itself.
... Then, the game is virtually over.

You know, that's part of your problem, Bob. You think a question is proof of something - faulty reasoning, right from the start. Questions are not proof, nor are they evidence.

Go ahead - claim that you have 'proof' and 'evidence', Bob, on the basis of your meaningless question. It only demonstrates to the reader that you have no credibility and lack even general logic and reasoning faculties.

Seriously, though, Bob, get help. You need it.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're a plonker Z-dragon, but I can't help but like you.

There is no "randomness" in the effects yielded by the mechanisms that we behold: they all produce the same effects.
Hence, the laws of physics.

Something singular forces singular effects to act, collectively, as singular mechanisms that yield consistently-predictable singular effects.

This game is over.
Lucky for you all that it's very late in England so that I must go to bed very soon. That gives several hours to deter me starting a new thread with a proof which proves, beyond doubt, than an "ACA" (absolute causal-agent) doth exist.

Order 6 billion white robes or start looking for reasonable refutations to this profound realisation.

:dl:

Don't you mean 6 billion 'sensed-white-robes'?

BTW - have you ever heard of uncertainty principle? Chaos theory? Some causes produce unpredictable effects, and some produce multiple effects. Ergo, your 'proof' question fails, yet again.

BTW - you already tried proving the ACA exists - remember? That's the one where you failed, miserably, to deal with the issues of infinity, and from which you ran to start this thread?

'Plonker' - what a silly term.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You know, that's part of your problem, Bob. You think a question is proof of something - faulty reasoning, right from the start. Questions are not proof, nor are they evidence.

Go ahead - claim that you have 'proof' and 'evidence', Bob, on the basis of your meaningless question. It only demonstrates to the reader that you have no credibility and lack even general logic and reasoning faculties.

Seriously, though, Bob, get help. You need it.

Perhaps you could answer my question. Please, if you could just give me a page in this thread where he relates his first post to god, it would help.

[Z]

You know, at a glance, I can't see where he has provided the necessary reasoning chain linking his OP to the God-theory.

I think he does so in one of his half-dozen or so other abandoned threads - it's hard to say. The problem with this breed of zealot is, they try hard to assert and to make truth by assertion, but are very weak on the necessary reasoning and logic skills to back their assertions.

Anyway - Bob? Mind telling us how your point relates to God?

(Do you mind me calling you Bob? It's more familiar to my poor fingers to type than LG.)

[Z]

Sorry, Bob, I'm off to work. Have a good night's (sensed) sleep, and don't worry too much about this whole thing - if it's true, then nothing matters anyway at all.

G'night!

[lifegazer]

You have several hours left people. I would suggest that you use that time to find a serious answer to my question.
This is your last chance. I mean it.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is a radical viewpoint which you've probably never come across or realised before. Why? I'll tell you why. Your position boils-down to this:-

(1) There are no absolute (singular) causes.
(2) There are only mechanistic (multiple) causes.
(3) Therefore, there are lots of singular effects but no singular causes.
Here's the crunch:-
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?


Sorry, but my position boils down to this:

...

But in answer to your blue question: I don't understand enough of what you are talking about to answer it. I'm not even sure what this has to do with my position, because my position is that I can't form one until I see the whole thing, which I haven't.

I seriously need more of an explanation. I've been reading the entire thread, and all you seem to do is repeat yourself without elaboration. That is why I keep asking you the same questions; you haven't said anything different. I'd love to have a serious rational discussion about your philosophy, but right now, the way you are treating me, it's just going to go in circles until you forget about what everybody says and write the damn thing down as clearly as you can, step by step.

[lifegazer]

I'm going to start a new thread on the back of "that question", so if you've got anything to say about it, say it over there.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by lifegazer
By default, if there are no singular (absolutely so) causes for any effects, then all effects must be viewed as a product of collective causes (a "mechanism"). By default, "a mechanism" is viewed as a collective whole, such as the brain or an engine or the atom, etc..
Our [limited] understanding of mechanisms enables us to predict [many of] the effects of their ordered work/interaction.

By whose default? The order, the mechanism, the purpose, these are only in the minds of those who can not accept that the universe and we are nothing but a product of countless random iteractions. There is no "force" or "will" planning and determinating the origin and evolution of the universe. There is no need for it other than in the minds of those whose bloated egoes can not accept that the universe was not created for them.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Your answer will be found in your inability to answer my question + my previous response to your previous question.

Laughable.
The answer to your question is written above. Your question is the old clock-without-a-maker line. Want it more clear? A single line? THERE IS NO CLOCK, THREFORE THERE IS NO MAKER

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why are the laws of physics so consistent? If the workings and produce of all mechanisms were random, then there would be no laws-of-physics... no science.

Again, the old clock-without-a-maker line. You want, you desperately need to see a purpose.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm a [natural] philosopher mate. I never go to church... I'm not religious. Everything I say to you is a product of reason alone.

I suppose you actually wanted to say that you do not follow any organized religion. You belive in god. You are religious in your own way, since you are following a set of rules (even if created by you) focused in the supposed existence of a deity.

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you want to refute my argument, then refute the reason behind it.
Note that amongst all of these questions of yours, you evaded answering that all-profound question by yourself. And given that [according to you] this question was refuted centuries ago (are you listening z-dragon?), I'm a bit perplexed as to why you simply didn't type the answer to that question directly, as espoused by these 'refut[i]eurs' of my [centuries-old] question.
Well?
Why bother with all these questions when you can simply paste the answer from some philosophical website?
Could it be that you told a porkie?

It´s already been refuted. Not only on this thread, but also at other threads. The clock-without-a-maker line is among the most commom lines of argument people who belive in some concept of god try touse. If you do not belive, do some googling on intelligent design. I just typed the answer to dummies.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Because I'm telling you that you are God, also.
Lifegazer doesn't want to be worshipped by you. He wants you to worship the God within yourself.

Worshipping is for the weak. Worshipping is submission. I am proud of being the result of countless random iteractions of unrelated proccesses. I am proud to understand that I am nothing, and the chances of me being born - as well as those for the human race evolve- were zilch. This raises a great sense of awe and responsability in me. This is my only and single shot, and I have to use it in the best way I can. Same line of reasoning is valid for our race.

The notion of a god is usefull only for those whose egoes are too bloated. Those who need to feel important and special. Those who despair when look at the trully insignificant position of themselves and the human race.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You have several hours left people. I would suggest that you use that time to find a serious answer to my question.
This is your last chance. I mean it.

So in other words you reserve the right to delay presenting an argument that you had plenty of to develop, but we only have a couple of days to answer it?

That in itself speaks volumes about the lack of confidence that you have in your own theory.

I will present a point by point rebuttal, but of course I can't make you listen to other ideas.

[Robin]

My two cents, for what it's worth:

1. Existence is non-spatial

I don’t think that anybody here really considers that the R3+t universe that we are aware of represents the whole of existence, even physics seems to say otherwise, so I will consider this taken as read.

2. There can be only one indivisible non-spatial entity

History has shown us that it is impossible to determine the nature of ‘real’ things by reason alone. Things rarely behave in the way we think they should. We need a combination of observation and reasoning to really find out anything about real things.

It follows that we cannot really know anything about an unobservable entity, we can only conjecture.

So we don’t really know whether there can be one, two or infinite non-spatial entities. What would separate them? Maybe identity, properties, behaviour, essence or any number of things that we are in no position to know about because our awareness is, by definition, limited to the observable.

However I have no objection to the idea that all existence is one undivided fabric, so I will accept this as reasonable conjecture and pass on to the crux.

3. Experiences that we appear to have are actually being experienced by the one non-spatial entity.

Or in Lifegazers words:

(3) This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness (sensations, thoughts & feelings). It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it.
(4) The human experience (the experience of being human) is being had by It. Nothing else exists. That's why your true identity is that of the perceiver - and not that which you perceive of yourself.

Let’s examine this in the case of the experience of pain. Neurologists understand pretty well how bodies experience pain and anybody can understand the role pain plays in the functioning of an organism.

However nobody has identified any mechanism whereby an outside entity can experience pain for us. It is not enough just to be of the same fabric, you need to identify the mechanism.

You may say that what is felt by the individual is felt by the whole but this is assuming something about the properties of the non-spatial entity. The fabric of existence may not transmit anything.

I will leave it to others to apply this, if they wish, to other human experiences.

Pain only makes sense where animals are the end result of an undirected process. If animals are the result of an aware, intelligent and powerful process then it becomes absurd. There is no purpose to be served by God feeling pain for us and a well designed universe would obviate the need for pain anyway.

This is the philosophic objection that all religions come up against eventually and probably the reason for the “suffering God� idea behind Christianity.

So even if we accept premises 1 and 2 it leads to at best agnosticism “there may be a God but we have no way of knowing�, or more likely atheism: “there may be a God but it doesn’t really make sense�

And finally, even if the last two conjectures were true, it would probably be profoundly interesting, but how would it change our behaviour?

After all what purpose is to be served by God praying to himself?

[Z]

And here, his 'proof of God' sputters out entirely and leaves him with a non-sensical question, off of which he ran off to start yet another non-sensical thread...
Still waiting for that proof, LG.