The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

Actually, theology does teach that God was indeed the universe since universe means everything in existence and at one point, theologically, God was all there was.

 

[Freodin]

Actually, theology does teach that God was indeed the universe since universe means everything in existence and at one point, theologically, God was all there was.

Actually, this is a nice theological cop out, which doesn't adress the point that Michael believes that God NOW is the universe NOW in some way.

But hey: why deal with a fundamental disagreement in position, when pointing out that someone else also believes in a "creator"... even if his version is diametrically opposed to yours.

 

[Radrook]

Actually, this is a nice theological cop out, which doesn't adress the point that Michael believes that God NOW is the universe NOW in some way.

But hey: why deal with a fundamental disagreement in position, when pointing out that someone else also believes in a "creator"... even if his version is diametrically opposed to yours.

I understood Michael offering it as a possibility not a claim of actual fact. Also, whatever the concepts might be about the intelligent designer it doesn't affect the evidence of intelligent design one bit because it is irrelevant to that irrefutable evidence as displayed compellingly in nature.

 

[Freodin]

I understood Michael offering it as a possibility not a claim of actual fact. Also, whatever the concepts might be about the intelligent designer it doesn't affect the evidence of intelligent design one bit because it is irrelevant to that irrefutable evidence as displayed compellingly in nature.

But you are aware that this "possibility" that Michael offers directly contradicts your claim of "unintelligent chemicals programming themselves is impossible"?

If you accept this "possibility"... that a bunch of hydrogen, plasma, electrical currents on a macro level can somehow become "an intelligent creator"... then why are you so stubbornly refusing that a bunch of hydrogen, plasma and electrical currents on a micro level can also become "an intelligent creator"?

 

[Radrook]

But you are aware that this "possibility" that Michael offers directly contradicts your claim of "unintelligent chemicals programming themselves is impossible"?

If you accept this "possibility"... that a bunch of hydrogen, plasma, electrical currents on a macro level can somehow become "an intelligent creator"... then why are you so stubbornly refusing that a bunch of hydrogen, plasma and electrical currents on a micro level can also become "an intelligent creator"?

Woe! Hold on now! I understood him as saying that it is possible that God encompasses the whole universe in some mysterious way. To me that doesn't contradict the intelligent design evidence at all. Maybe we understood him differently.

 

[Freodin]

Woe! Hold on now! I understood him as saying that it is possible that God encompasses the whole universe in some mysterious way. To me that doesn't contradict the intelligent design evidence at all. Maybe we understood him differently.

It does contradict your position of "intelligent design" in that way that a bunch of "unintelligent" matter somehow is or became an "intelligent creator". Accoring to you, this is not possible. There would have to be another "intelligent creator" to "program" the matter to form an such a system.

But perhaps you misunderstood him indeed. Considering that you consistently misunderstand the "natural evolution" position, this is nothing surprising.

Maybe you should consider that your misunderstandings might be the problem?

 

[Radrook]

It does contradict your position of "intelligent design" in that way that a bunch of "unintelligent" matter somehow is or became an "intelligent creator". Accoring to you, this is not possible. There would have to be another "intelligent creator" to "program" the matter to form an such a system.

But perhaps you misunderstood him indeed. Considering that you consistently misunderstand the "natural evolution" position, this is nothing surprising.

Maybe you should consider that your misunderstandings might be the problem?

I think that you are misunderstanding what he meant since being a theist, he clearly isn't arguing against intelligent design while you are. Also, I don't misunderstand the natural evolution position-I simply disagree with it when it involves atheism.

 

[Freodin]

I think that you are misunderstanding what he meant since being a theist, he clearly isn't arguing against intelligent design while you are. Also, I don't misunderstand the natural evolution position-I simply disagree with it when it involves atheism.

Really? But you are arguing for atheism, so why would you disagree it only in the context of evolution?

 

[Michael]

Beats me (you're the one who brought it up), but if God is the universe, then what purpose does it serve to address (or hold on to) both problems?

Although, being so rash, I must consider the possibility that I miss something about your position.

Panentheism is in fact a cosmology theory, so it might make other cosmology theories redundant, but "God" would not be redundant.

 

[Michael]

I dare say, in a very similar way that you subjectively decide that it does.

Well, as long you accept that it's part of your own personal subjective "statement of faith", I'm good.

Yes, in part. So what? Is that the sun's "function"?

Is it?

Yes, so what?
The assertion you made - repeatedly, like in the statement "Or perhaps it *is* the whole universe." or your repeated referring to pan- or panentheism - is that the whole universe is a conscious intelligent creator.
This is a rather different statement from "the sun's energy is what makes live on earth possible". Very different.
I do not see the logical connection between "the sun's energy is what makes live on earth possible" and "the universe consciously created live on earth".

I'm not suggesting that we can logically jump from one position to *any* other claim. I'm simply noting that the sun seems to have a specific function that's critical to all life on Earth. All suns would serve the same purpose too. The whole system could be "designed" to support life for all I know.

Since when did a sun decide to shine on a planet in order to sustain life?

Since it first started to shine?

The sun "functions" as a source of heat and light, energy, radiation. This does not mean it also "functions" as either an intelligent conscious creator, or as a golf ball.

I can't really make any "assumptions", either for or against Panentheism based on that one issue. I can however see that the consistency of the system is what makes life possible here on Earth. Whatever else I might say about the universe, it's pretty optimally suited to support life, over timeframes of billions of years. It's a pretty neat system, and it could in fact be 'designed' to support life for all I know.

 

[Michael]

Actually, this is a nice theological cop out, which doesn't adress the point that Michael believes that God NOW is the universe NOW in some way.

FYI, we can't even observe the *whole* universe, just our little visible sliver of it. God would therefore not be limited to *only* what we can observe from Earth.

But hey: why deal with a fundamental disagreement in position, when pointing out that someone else also believes in a "creator"... even if his version is diametrically opposed to yours.

Ultimately it depends on how you look at it. We both assume that God consciously "created" (intentionally designed) everything that we can currently observe.

 

[Michael]

It does contradict your position of "intelligent design" in that way that a bunch of "unintelligent" matter somehow is or became an "intelligent creator". Accoring to you, this is not possible. There would have to be another "intelligent creator" to "program" the matter to form an such a system.

Hmmmm.

I would say that you're jumping the gun just a bit. You have correctly represented my beliefs, but I remain open to other possibilities too. Everything that humans think of as "matter" and "energy" may simply be transitory in nature, and may simply be a temporary "creation" of God, as well simply being a "part of God". I'm fine if God came to exist in the way that you describe, and you did accurately represent my position in terms of my best guess, but I'm not completely closed minded to other possible explanations for the origin of what we think of as "physical reality". God may be composed of a much more primordial form of energy AFAIK, and this may simply be something he "created" to sustain other "forms" of life.

 

[Freodin]

Ultimately it depends on how you look at it. We both assume that God consciously "created" (intentionally designed) everything that we can currently observe.

What is this "God" that you are talking about?

In the last post you (evadingly using a question) you responed to my question when the sun did decide to shine on the earth to sustain life, that it did so, "Since it first started to shine".

So I would take that as meaning that you believe / could accept that the sun did indeed decide to shine, and did that in order to sustain life on earth. (Roughly spoken, problems with the chronology not accounted for).

If I now was Radrook, with his horror of unintelligent chemicals programming themselves, I would ask you how a big ball of hot hydrogenium could programm itself to shine, and to do that for a purpose?

Note that in this case here I am not really engaging your view here... I just want to understand why Radrook seems to be so upset with our version, but not with yours.

 

[Michael]

What is this "God" that you are talking about?

In the last post you (evadingly using a question) you responed to my question when the sun did decide to shine on the earth to sustain life, that it did so, "Since it first started to shine".

So I would take that as meaning that you believe / could accept that the sun did indeed decide to shine, and did that in order to sustain life on earth. (Roughly spoken, problems with the chronology not accounted for).

If I now was Radrook, with his horror of unintelligent chemicals programming themselves, I would ask you how a big ball of hot hydrogenium could programm itself to shine, and to do that for a purpose?

Note that in this case here I am not arguing really engaging your view here... I just want to understand why Radrook seems to be so upset with our version, but not with yours.

Maybe because I'm just less rigid in terms of my beliefs than you seem to suggest? You're right that I'm personally fine if that's exactly how God came to exist, but I can't really know that for a fact. It's just *one* possible explanation among several that I entertain.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I personally believe that suns are mostly made if Iron, Nickel, Silicon and other heavy elements, and they have a mostly hydrogen corona, and mostly helium chromosphere.

The surface of the Sun:  The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery.  The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.

 

[Ophiolite]

Deep sigh, because sometimes a face palm is just not enough.

 

[Radrook]

No one here is saying that the Sun DECIDED to do anything or that matter decides to do anything since decision is an attribute of mind and no one here is attributing mind to dead matter. Stop misrepresenting and warping please!

 

[Freodin]

No one here is saying that the Sun DECIDED to do anything or that matter decides to do anything since decision is an attribute of mind and no one here is attributing mind to dead matter. Stop misrepresenting and warping please!

Michael explicitly stated that this is "one explanation" that he would accept, that he is "fine with". If you want to ignore that... fine with me.

But then perhaps you can explain how you think a "natural" and "non theistic" mind works.

 

[Radrook]

Michael explicitly stated that this is "one explanation" that he would accept, that he is "fine with". If you want to ignore that... fine with me.

But then perhaps you can explain how you think a "natural" and "non theistic" mind works.

I assumed that he wasn't postulating such an idea as either a possibility or a certainty. If indeed I am mistaken then my apologies. Since I personally do not believe that mind arises naturally without an intelligent designer as a source I cannot very well explain such a hypothetical phenomenon. In short, to explain it I would need to consider it possible but I don't.

 

[Freodin]

I assumed that he wasn't postulating such an idea as either a possibility or a certainty. If indeed I am mistaken then my apologies.

Apologies accepted.

So, can you explain how, in your view, a "natural" and "non theistic" mind works?