If I have the Respect of every Creature, I have the respect of Evolution?

[Neogaia777]

I'm just going by what Bungle Bear said.

Of course, if you have evidence to support your claims, then I'd be happy to re-evaluate my position. But if all you have is an argument that boils down to, "I can't believe it could have happened any other way, therefore it didn't happen any other way," then yes, you do have an argument from incredulity.

And when you say things like, "It has order, so it must have come from an intelligence," (see post 179) that's pretty much saying that you can't imagine how order can come about without intelligence. So, argument from incredulity.

I posited "determinism" and "causal determinism" especially in physics, etc, and I'm guessing you haven't looked at my posts going back in this thread so... But, determinism in physics is something more and more physicists are coming to believe in, and some have in the past, like Einstein, etc, they (most of them) came to believe in a "deterministic universe", etc, and thought there might be a one who caused or originally determined, (and knew all about it) etc, some kind of intelligence or much higher intelligence possibly, etc, but many were very reluctant to call it/Him or that one, "God", etc, but I do, etc... and while people like Einstein thought there could be some kind of intelligent being like that, based on the evidence of determinism and a deterministic universe, he was 100% totally against it being the God of the Bible, or being any kind of deity that mankind could comprehend of, or possible "know", or maybe even know about, etc, and didn't think He or it or that one would ever be directly involved ever with His creation ever either, etc... if there was such a one, etc, who did kind of create or make or made it or was the original determiner, or determining or original cause for it, etc, or of all other causes that determined all the the rest or the causes that came after it, etc, because, in determinism, it is all based on "cause and effect going all the way back to the original cause", etc, and there has to be an original cause, or "causer", etc, because they believed in determinism and a deterministic universe, etc...

My beliefs differ only slightly, etc, I believe such a one does exist, and would have to exist for determinism or for a deterministic universe to be true, etc, which even many of them tend to agree with based on the "evidence", and what they have come to believe by or through pure "observation" and observing, etc...But I believe that He or that one would have to be the "Father God", etc, who may not be directly involved in His creation except by "another one", or more specifically, "another two", more specifically, etc, consisting of God in and of the OT, and Christ, I believing God to be a "trinity", etc...

God on three different "levels", etc, and Christ being one of those in the form of "man", etc, then on the "very highest level", this possible "one" we are or were just speaking about and/or discussing here, etc, and God in and of the OT, somewhere "in-between" those two, etc...

Anyway, we are really only talking about the "highest one" here though, really, which if determinism is true, and a deterministic universe is the reality, or the truth, etc, many conclude, even many non-believers, etc, that such a "kind of a kind of being" like that, etc, or "intelligence of some kind like that", or a much, much "higher intelligence than us", like that, or kind of like a "possible deity or God-like being", etc, does and/or could and/or should exist, etc, as the original cause and/or original "prime mover" or determining factor in determinism, etc, otherwise determinism in general, and the theory of a deterministic universe, etc, just kind of falls apart, etc, without an original and I posit "intelligent" original determining cause and/or prime mover or prime original source or prime factor, etc... (or "God" that "knew all about it" already, etc) (made and/or created and/or designed it all, and/or set in all in motion, and/or gave it all "life, etc, and knew all about it, etc)...

Anyway, that's about the gist of it anyway...

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

I posited "determinism" and "causal determinism" especially in physics, etc, and I'm guessing you haven't looked at my posts going back in this thread so... But, determinism in physics is something more and more physicists are coming to believe in, and some have in the past, like Einstein, etc, they (most of them) came to believe in a "deterministic universe", etc, and thought there might be a one who caused or originally determined, (and knew all about it) etc, some kind of intelligence or much higher intelligence possibly, etc, but many were very reluctant to call it/Him or that one, "God", etc, but I do, etc... and while people like Einstein thought there could be some kind of intelligent being like that, based on the evidence of determinism and a deterministic universe, he was 100% totally against it being the God of the Bible, or being any kind of deity that mankind could comprehend of, or possible "know", or maybe even know about, etc, and didn't think He or it or that one would ever be directly involved ever with His creation ever either, etc... if there was such a one, etc, who did kind of create or make or made it or was the original determiner, or determining or original cause for it, etc, or of all other causes that determined all the the rest or the causes that came after it, etc, because, in determinism, it is all based on "cause and effect going all the way back to the original cause", etc, and there has to be an original cause, or "causer", etc, because they believed in determinism and a deterministic universe, etc...

My beliefs differ only slightly, etc, I believe such a one does exist, and would have to exist for determinism or for a deterministic universe to be true, etc, which even many of them tend to agree with based on the "evidence", and what they have come to believe by or through pure "observation" and observing, etc...But I believe that He or that one would have to be the "Father God", etc, who may not be directly involved in His creation except by "another one", or more specifically, "another two", more specifically, etc, consisting of God in and of the OT, and Christ, I believing God to be a "trinity", etc...

God on three different "levels", etc, and Christ being one of those in the form of "man", etc, then on the "very highest level", this possible "one" we are or were just speaking about and/or discussing here, etc, and God in and of the OT, somewhere "in-between" those two, etc...

Anyway, we are really only talking about the "highest one" here though, really, which if determinism is true, and a deterministic universe is the reality, or the truth, etc, many conclude, even many non-believers, etc, that such a "kind of a kind of being" like that, etc, or "intelligence of some kind like that", or a much, much "higher intelligence than us", like that, or kind of like a "possible deity or God-like being", etc, does and/or could and/or should exist, etc, as the original cause and/or original "prime mover" or determining factor in determinism, etc, otherwise determinism in general, and the theory of a deterministic universe, etc, just kind of falls apart, etc, without an original and I posit "intelligent" original determining cause and/or prime mover or prime original source or prime factor, etc... (or "God" that "knew all about it" already, etc) (made and/or created and/or designed it all, and/or set in all in motion, and/or gave it all "life, etc, and knew all about it, etc)...

Anyway, that's about the gist of it anyway...

God Bless!

I'll ask again...

Do you have any evidence to back up your position? Or do you hold your position simply because you find it hard to believe that it could be anything different?

 

[Neogaia777]

I'll ask again...

Do you have any evidence to back up your position? Or do you hold your position simply because you find it hard to believe that it could be anything different?

Determinism and a deterministic universe, and the universe itself as evidence, etc...

I told people before to just "google it" and "decide for themselves", etc...?

"Determinism", and a "deterministic universe", and "determinism in physics", and "evidence either for and/or against determinism" in general, etc, for starters, etc...

That I wasn't going to provide a bunch of "cherry picked by me links" when you guys are fully capable of just googling it yourselves, etc, then "decide for yourselves", etc...

The "evidence" is pretty overwhelming though...

That all I would be doing is just posting a bunch of links from google searches myself, etc...

But I guess I will do that if you really insist and really want me to, etc...? But I really don't see the point when you can just do it yourselves, etc...?

And you'd be more apt to decide for yourselves if you did it yourselves, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Determinism and a deterministic universe, and the universe itself as evidence, etc...

I told people before to just "google it" and "decide for themselves", etc...?

"Determinism", and a "deterministic universe", and "determinism in physics", and "evidence either for and/or against determinism" in general, etc, for starters, etc...

That I wasn't going to provide a bunch of "cherry picked by me links" when you guys are fully capable of just googling it yourselves, etc, then "decide for yourselves", etc...

The "evidence" is pretty overwhelming though...

That all I would be doing is just posting a bunch of links from google searches myself, etc...

But I guess I will do that if you really insist and really want me to, etc...? But I really don't see the point when you can just do it yourselves, etc...?

And you'd be more apt to decide for yourselves if you did it yourselves, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

You appear not to understand the difference between a cause and a possible underlying intelligence. We're not asking for evidence of determinism, we're asking for evidence of the underlying intelligence you claim is responsible.

 

[Neogaia777]

You appear not to understand the difference between a cause and a possible underlying intelligence. We're not asking for evidence of determinism, we're asking for evidence of the underlying intelligence you claim is responsible.

What do you suppose caused it then...?

And, the "proof" for intelligence is "in the pudding" I guess you could say, or in this universe itself all around us, etc... it's being predictable by math, etc, why people like Einstein thought that "it" would have to be "very, very highly intelligent", etc, "very, very, very highly intelligent", etc, "beyond comprehension intelligent", etc, just by what He saw in physics and knew of the universe and the world around him, etc...

Also why he thought it could not be the "God of the Bible", etc, or "any kind of god or gods anyone else could conceive of and/or think of and/or about and/or make-up", etc... But He still very much thought that such and entity or being could exist, etc... and with his views of a deterministic universe, etc, (and also what he knew of the universe and math in the universe also, etc), anyway, would more than likely "have to exist", etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

Determinism and a deterministic universe, and the universe itself as evidence, etc...

I told people before to just "google it" and "decide for themselves", etc...?

"Determinism", and a "deterministic universe", and "determinism in physics", and "evidence either for and/or against determinism" in general, etc, for starters, etc...

That I wasn't going to provide a bunch of "cherry picked by me links" when you guys are fully capable of just googling it yourselves, etc, then "decide for yourselves", etc...

The "evidence" is pretty overwhelming though...

That all I would be doing is just posting a bunch of links from google searches myself, etc...

But I guess I will do that if you really insist and really want me to, etc...? But I really don't see the point when you can just do it yourselves, etc...?

And you'd be more apt to decide for yourselves if you did it yourselves, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

You have not answered my question. You've just asserted that determinism is evidence for God, but you have not explained how. I don't think that it has even been demonstrated that the universe is deterministic, either.

Please show that the universe is deterministic.

Please show how a deterministic universe can only be explained by God.

 

[Neogaia777]

You have not answered my question. You've just asserted that determinism is evidence for God, but you have not explained how. I don't think that it has even been demonstrated that the universe is deterministic, either.

Please show that the universe is deterministic.

Please show how a deterministic universe can only be explained by God.

Most people in the fields are coming more and more to a very strong belief in a deterministic universe, etc...

And, there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe, etc...

And then, the intelligence of that cause is shown in the universe itself, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

Most people in the fields are coming more and more to a very strong belief in a deterministic universe, etc...

And, there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe, etc...

And then, the intelligence of that cause is shown in the universe itself, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

You have not answered my questions.

Saying that lots of people believe something is not showing that what they believe is true. It's just an argument from popularity, and it's a logical fallacy.

And you are using the argument from incredulity when you say, "there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe."

So, you have not been able to answer my questions, and you have shown that your argument is based on an argument from incredulity, just as Bungle Bear said.

 

[Kylie]

And, the "proof" for intelligence is "in the pudding" I guess you could say, or in this universe itself all around us, etc... it's being predictable by math, etc, why people like Einstein thought that "it" would have to be "very, very highly intelligent", etc, "very, very, very highly intelligent", etc, "beyond comprehension intelligent", etc, just by what He saw in physics and knew of the universe and the world around him, etc...

Please show where Einstein said this.

 

[Neogaia777]

You have not answered my questions.

Saying that lots of people believe something is not showing that what they believe is true. It's just an argument from popularity, and it's a logical fallacy.

And you are using the argument from incredulity when you say, "there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe."

So, you have not been able to answer my questions, and you have shown that your argument is based on an argument from incredulity, just as Bungle Bear said.

And just what do you mean by "incredulity" "exactly", like I asked you guys before, "exactly", etc...?

Do you mean "not believable", or "hard for you to believe", or what...? Not based on any kind of evidence or actual facts, or "what" exactly, etc...?

Pleas explain what you are trying to say and don't just throw around the words, K...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Please show where Einstein said this.

I'm not quoting verbatim, google, "did Einstein believe in a god", OK...?

Cause that's what I did, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

You have not answered my questions.

Saying that lots of people believe something is not showing that what they believe is true. It's just an argument from popularity, and it's a logical fallacy.

And you are using the argument from incredulity when you say, "there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe."

So, you have not been able to answer my questions, and you have shown that your argument is based on an argument from incredulity, just as Bungle Bear said.

And just what do you mean by "incredulity" "exactly", like I asked you guys before, "exactly", etc...?

Do you mean "not believable", or "hard for you to believe", or what...? Not based on any kind of evidence or actual facts, or "what" exactly, etc...?

Pleas explain what you are trying to say and don't just throw around the words, K...

God Bless!

You know what, I think you guys just keep throwing around words and/or terms without you yourselves fully knowing what you mean sometimes, etc...

When I run into words or terms I don't know and/or am unsure of, I look them up, google them real quick, etc, check their full definitions, how they are used in sentences, and other terms surrounding them, etc, and for that reason, etc, well, let's just say it makes me think sometimes that you guys are just throwing words and terms around sometimes without even you even fully knowing fully what they really even are, or really even mean sometimes, or what you are really fully meaning and/or trying to say by using them or saying them, etc...?

Which does not look good on you guys BTW, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

You know what, I think you guys just keep throwing around words and/or terms without you yourselves fully knowing what you mean sometimes, etc...

When I run into words or terms I don't know and/or am unsure of, I look them up, google them real quick, etc, check their full definitions, how they are used in sentences, and other terms surrounding them, etc, and for that reason, etc, well, let's just say it makes me think sometimes that you guys are just throwing words and terms around sometimes without even you even fully knowing fully what they really even are, or really even mean sometimes, or what you are really fully meaning and/or trying to say by using them or saying them, etc...?

Which does not look good on you guys BTW, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

And you didn't actually say which words I was using incorrectly.

How about you do more than just make vague claims, and try to be specific?

Or you could just answer my questions.

 

[Neogaia777]

And you didn't actually say which words I was using incorrectly.

I just wanted you to be more more specific as to how exactly I was making arguments from incredulity, etc...?

I made sure to look the term up and am still not seeing how I am, etc, that's why I tried to ask you just exactly what you meant in post #210, four posts before (above) this one, etc...? And in a few posts before that with others also, cause by the definition of the term, I don't see how I am, etc...?

How about you do more than just make vague claims, and try to be specific?

I thought I did, and was, and tried...?

Or you could just answer my questions.

I thought I did, and was, and tried...?

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

I'm not quoting verbatim, google, "did Einstein believe in a god", OK...?

Cause that's what I did, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Okay, I googled that. Here's a selection of what I got.

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” SOURCE

"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.” SOURCE

When asked many years later whether he believed in God, he replied: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.’ Baruch Spinoza, a contemporary of Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, had conceived of God as identical with nature. SOURCE

Einstein apparently used the word God to describe the most basic, underlying mechanisms by which the universe operated, the ones that were mysterious and unknown. Einstein appeared to be very much what most people would call a pantheist, that nature IS God, not some separate being.

Now, I will repeat my question to you, spelling it out clearly (as you seem to ignore the specifics):

You claimed that Einstein described God as intelligent. Specifically in post 205, where you said, "people like Einstein thought that "it" would have to be "very, very highly intelligent", etc, "very, very, very highly intelligent", etc, "beyond comprehension intelligent", etc, just by what He saw in physics and knew of the universe and the world around him..."

Please support this claim, because there is no support for it that I could find. If you can't provide a source for your claim, you should withdraw it.

 

[Kylie]

I just wanted you to be more more specific as to how exactly I was making arguments from incredulity, etc...?

You want me to be more specific?

I literally told you the words you used. How much more specific do you want me to be?

In post 207, you said, "And, there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe, etc..."

The instant you say, "What I believe just HAS to be the way it really is!", that's argument from incredulity.

I thought I did, and was, and tried...?

I asked you to show that the universe was deterministic. You have not done so.

I asked you to show that a deterministic universe proved God. You have not done so.

 

[Neogaia777]

Okay, I googled that. Here's a selection of what I got.

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” SOURCE

"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.” SOURCE

When asked many years later whether he believed in God, he replied: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.’ Baruch Spinoza, a contemporary of Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, had conceived of God as identical with nature. SOURCE

Einstein apparently used the word God to describe the most basic, underlying mechanisms by which the universe operated, the ones that were mysterious and unknown. Einstein appeared to be very much what most people would call a pantheist, that nature IS God, not some separate being.

Now, I will repeat my question to you, spelling it out clearly (as you seem to ignore the specifics):

You claimed that Einstein described God as intelligent. Specifically in post 205, where you said, "people like Einstein thought that "it" would have to be "very, very highly intelligent", etc, "very, very, very highly intelligent", etc, "beyond comprehension intelligent", etc, just by what He saw in physics and knew of the universe and the world around him..."

Please support this claim, because there is no support for it that I could find. If you can't provide a source for your claim, you should withdraw it.

OK, Wikipedia on Spinoza's God, He says things like (from the first paragraph)

"In a letter to Henry Oldenburg, Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[1] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") Spinoza meant God was Natura naturansnot Natura naturata, that is, "a dynamic nature in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing."

And that's just the "first paragraph", etc, and it does in fact seem to exactly like the true Father God that I am trying to describe, etc...

Spinoza describes "it" as being one with the universe and nature, maybe even being that universe itself, but also has "infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world (or this world or just nature alone and/or just this universe alone and what we know, etc). and a dynamic nature (thing or "being" possibly) (but that is one with everything else) in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing." (possibly intimately "involved", etc).

And again, and in case you missed it, he says, as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[1] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world, etc, etc, etc...

He also says, "Spinoza argues that there is only one Substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. Substance causes an infinite number of attributes (the intellect perceiving an abstract concept or essence) and modes (things following from attributes and modes). He calls this Substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"), but readers often disregard his neutral monism. During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God - for which he was accused of atheism. Spinoza asserted that the whole of the natural universe is made of one Substance – God or Nature (which he viewed as synonymous)– and its modifications (modes).

And there is more...

But, just notice the terms he uses to describe it/Him/it, "absolutely infinite, self-caused" (self-created), and "eternal", etc, an "everything else I quoted/bolded", etc...

And you don't think a "God" like that would be "intelligent", etc...? Spinoza describes Him/it as being "infinite" in almost everything else, why not "intelligence" then...? And he describes his God as being "thoroughly deterministic", etc, which would most certainly mean, and I think actually does have to mean "100% very, very much extremely intelligent" as well, etc...

But, to make it short, I have absolutely no problems with viewing Spinoza's God and being synonymous with what I would call "the true Father God", etc, but as I also said, I believe God to be a "trinity", etc...

I'm called and often labeled a "heretic" because I believe in this, and because I think God in and of the OT was the "Holy Spirit", etc, or the second form of God, etc, God the Spirit, or in Spirit form, then Jesus Christ, the man, being the third form of God, or the God-man, or the man that is (also) God, and the God that is also man, or God in man's form, or in the form of a man, etc...

Source: Spinozism - Wikipedia

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

You want me to be more specific?

I literally told you the words you used. How much more specific do you want me to be?

In post 207, you said, "And, there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe, etc..."

The instant you say, "What I believe just HAS to be the way it really is!", that's argument from incredulity.

That's not what I said, and now who's being "dishonest", etc...?

I said "there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe", and, in a "deterministic universe" or in a or any "deterministic view of the universe", that is 100% "fact", not fiction, etc, or a lie or false, ever, etc, and is in no way shape or form an "argument from incredulity" in any way whatsoever, etc...

IOW's, You are just 100% flat out "lying" now, etc...

I asked you to show that the universe was deterministic. You have not done so.

Oh, you want me to 100% without a doubt for 100% sure "prove it", well...

I can only tell you that "that" is what an increasing number of people in those fields (experts) are coming to conclude and/or believe, just based on what they know and they see and observe, most especially now, etc...

I asked you to show that a deterministic universe proved God. You have not done so.

Tried to do that, not going to try again, sorry...

Spinoza and Einstein seemed to think so though...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It's no known fallacy, that Einstein was not a big fan in any way of people who "set-up and/or made their own gods in their own images and likenesses", etc, (and neither am I, etc) but he probably didn't know that he actually did truly believe in the "True Father God", etc...

Wish I could tell him that, and give him the "rest of it" or "the rest of the story also", etc...

Betting I'll get to see him in heaven though...

Then none of this will even matter then, etc...

And oh how I "long for that day" too...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Einstein ... probably didn't know that he actually did truly believe in the "True Father God"...

Amazing - let's not take Einstein at his word, but presume that he was mistaken about his own stated beliefs...

If we are to accept such revisionism, why stop there?

On the same grounds, we can also claim that Jesus probably didn't know that he actually didn't truly believe in the "True Father God"...