For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[contango]

Here are the problems I see with this:

1) If there was something, it doesn't have been sentient.
2) If it was sentient, it doesn't have to have been a god.
3) If it was a god, it doesn't have to have been the Biblical God.

You could argue that the "something" wasn't sentient although you'd then effectively be back at option 2, namely that in the beginning was nothing intelligent and everything is still a cosmic fluke. The premise, which I accept may not have been worded as well as it might have been, is that either "in the beginning god", or "in the beginning no god", where "god" refers generically to an eternal sentient being. An eternal unintelligent being would fall into the "in the beginning, no god" option.

Your point 3 misses the mark completely - the whole purpose is to determine whether "god" exists - whether that is the God of the Bible or some other deity comes later. The last paragraph of my post clearly said "The next question, which is the point of the OP, is the nature of that god - whether we're talking about the God of the Bible, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Krishna, or any of the assorted other entities that people worship."

 

[Darkeonz]

I said it would cause me to raise my eyebrows. There's a big difference between a TV show that presumably has sponsors who are paying for it in exchange for the exposure and a small business that just hands over something for no payment when the TV cameras aren't rolling to show how they are donating so much to the community.

When is it a rare event and when is it a miracle? If someone wins the lottery... is it a miracle?

Who knows? It doesn't change the fact that the specific case I'm describing had someone who was expected to be dead within six weeks still growing stronger after nearly five months.

I know doctors make mistakes sometimes, but there's a difference between battling on as little more than living dead for a few extra weeks and the cancer apparently just disappearing.

And it doesn't change the fact that someone can drop dead without us knowing what the reason is. That doesn't mean it's devine intervention.

If we just accept that it's devine intervention, were do we go from there? Do we even investigate the cases and try and figure out what REALLY happened?

So how would you explain it?

If I can't, I won't

that's the thing. I would try and find out what did cause his/her immune system to actually get rid of the cancer. That's how we make new discoveries. And if we try and try and still can't find the solution, then we need to keep trying. It's like if you try and solve some hard puzzle and just give up and say it's unsolvable. That's not good

 

[sandwiches]

You could argue that the "something" wasn't sentient although you'd then effectively be back at option 2, namely that in the beginning was nothing intelligent and everything is still a cosmic fluke. The premise, which I accept may not have been worded as well as it might have been, is that either "in the beginning god", or "in the beginning no god", where "god" refers generically to an eternal sentient being. An eternal unintelligent being would fall into the "in the beginning, no god" option.

I am talking about a first cause. To even get to the point of believing that a god created the universe, we must first assume that the universe had a beginning and a first cause.

Your point 3 misses the mark completely - the whole purpose is to determine whether "god" exists - whether that is the God of the Bible or some other deity comes later. The last paragraph of my post clearly said "The next question, which is the point of the OP, is the nature of that god - whether we're talking about the God of the Bible, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Krishna, or any of the assorted other entities that people worship."

My mistake

 

[Doveaman]

I am talking about a first cause. To even get to the point of believing that a god created the universe, we must first assume that the universe had a beginning and a first cause.

The universe as we see it is made up of the sum of its parts (planets, stars, galaxies, etc), all of which are observed to be formed by a cause.

If the parts of the body are observed to be formed then is makes more sense the the body itself is formed since the body is the sum of its parts.

If the big bang universe is correct, what caused the bang?

If the electric universe is correct, where is the electricity being generated from?

Based on our observations in space and our experiences right here on earth, every bang has a cause and electricity is generated from somewhere.

 

[Doveaman]

It does have to be sentient because a nonsentient first cause could explain the universe just as well.

It cannot explain the existence of sentient beings.

All the evidence points to sentience producing sentience.

 

[Nostromo]

It cannot explain the existence of sentient beings.

All the evidence points to sentience producing sentience.

Which evidence is that exactly?

 

[sandwiches]

The universe as we see it is made up of the sum of its parts (planets, stars, galaxies, etc), all of which are observed to be formed by a cause.

Correct and correct.

If the parts of the body are observed to be formed then is makes more sense the the body itself is formed since the body is the sum of its parts.

It sounds logical.

If the big bang universe is correct, what caused the bang?

If the electric universe is correct, where is the electricity being generated from?

Based on our observations in space and our experiences right here on earth, every bang has a cause and electricity is generated from somewhere.

We don't know how or why the Big Bang happened.

However, as was pointed out to me by Tinker Grey, the issue I have with this argument is that while you're correct in that everything that has been formed, was formed from something else and that something else has always been something physical and observable itself.

 

[Doveaman]

Which evidence is that exactly?

Consciousness comes from consciousness and awareness from awareness. The evidence is all around us. Why assume something different for which there is no evidence.

 

[sandwiches]

It cannot explain the existence of sentient beings.

Sure it can.

All the evidence points to sentience producing sentience.

All modern cases of sentience comes from actual physical birth from physical, observable beings. Did a physical and observable god physically give birth to us? And save the "spiritual birth" stuff as nothing we've ever observed has been spiritually born.

 

[Doveaman]

We don't know how or why the Big Bang happened.

True. But based on our everyday observations and experience of cause and effect it makes more sense to conclude that something caused the Big Bang, a first cause.

However, as was pointed out to me by Tinker Grey, the issue I have with this argument is that while you're correct in that everything that has been formed, was formed from something else and that something else has always been something physical and observable itself.

Not everything is physical and observable but can sill affect the physical and observable. Is the human will physical and observable? But yet the human will can move a whole human.

 

[Doveaman]

All modern cases of sentience comes from actual physical birth from physical, observable beings. Did a physical and observable god physically give birth to us? And save the "spiritual birth" stuff as nothing we've ever observed has been spiritually born.

Okay.

But like I said, the nonphysical human will is what drives us as physical human beings. Not all reality is physical but can and does affect the physical.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Okay.

But like I said, the nonphysical human will is what drives us as physical human beings. Not all reality is physical but can and does affect the physical.

So it's not physical, it's psychological -- which can, in turn, be affected by the physical.

 

[Hespera]

Okay.

But like I said, the nonphysical human will is what drives us as physical human beings. Not all reality is physical but can and does affect the physical.

now THERE is an assumption, that "will" is nonphysical. Why on earth the fantastically complex brain if its not even needed?

Nobody can demonstrate that "will" has any existence whatever outside of physical processes, any more than the light stays on in the room when the electricity is cut off.

We know the theocreos like to assume this 'will" is nonpysical but that is all it is, a necessary assumption to make their story hold together.

not one speck of evidence that it is so.

 

[sandwiches]

True. But based on our everyday observations and experience of cause and effect it makes more sense to conclude that something caused the Big Bang, a first cause.

Something physical and observable, sure, again, based on our everyday observations and experience.

Not everything is physical and observable but can sill affect the physical and observable. Is the human will physical and observable? But yet the human will can move a whole human.

The human will is what we call certain processes in our physical brain.

 

[Ar Cosc]

If the "will" is nonphysical, how is it affected by physical things like alcohol and marijuana? And, indeed, head trauma

 

[Doveaman]

The human will is what we call certain processes in our physical brain.

Scientists cannot explain the human "will", they can only explain the effects it has on the brain. They see the effects it has on the brain, but not the cause. The "will" works through the brain but it is independent of the brain. This is why scientists have no explanation for the human "will", just as they have none for God's "will".

 

[Doveaman]

If the "will" is nonphysical, how is it affected by physical things like alcohol and marijuana? And, indeed, head trauma

See post above.

 

[Doveaman]

now THERE is an assumption, that "will" is nonphysical. Why on earth the fantastically complex brain if its not even needed?

The human "will" works through the human brain in order to drive the human body.

Nobody can demonstrate that "will" has any existence whatever outside of physical processes

Nor can they demonstrate that it doesn't . They can only demonstrate its effects on the brain, but not cause. That's because the cause is nonphysical.

The nonphysical "will" can exists within the brain or external to the brain, but it is still nonphysical. Just as the nonphysical God can exists within the universe or external to the universe, but He is still nonphysical.

 

[Doveaman]

So it's not physical, it's psychological -- which can, in turn, be affected by the physical.

A brain dead Christian would no longer be conscious of God, but God would still be conscious of the brain dead Christian.

 

[Hespera]

The human "will" works through the human brain in order to drive the human body.
Nor can they demonstrate that it doesn't . They can only demonstrate its effects on the brain, but not cause. That's because the cause is nonphysical.

The nonphysical "will" can exists within the brain or external to the brain, but it is still nonphysical. Just as the nonphysical God can exists within the universe or external to the universe, but He is still nonphysical.

Nor can they demonstrate that it doesn't . They can only demonstrate its effects on the brain, but not cause. That's because the cause is nonphysical.

That is worth as much as saying you cant prove i have no invisible unicorn in the garden.

Here is a physical structure, with chemical and electrical activity. When those activities cease, the "will" ceases too. Like a car.

Now, if you wish to claim a car or a brain has a spirit in it, then, show it.
Same as the unicorn. Show us a sign. You cant tho.

Do you think a grasshopper asoo has 'will"? An amoeba? What makes them move?

That's because the cause is nonphysical.

nothing nothing at all but a n utterly baseless assertion with not ONE solitary fact to support it.

Sorry, too much "faith"... which i guess is why you didnt address this..now THERE is an assumption, that "will" is nonphysical