Simplified argument for a God's existence

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Would its mother be immortal too?

Ha Ha, now your just teasing me!

Perhaps!

[Andrew66]

Andrew66 wrote

Ironically your statement illustrates an argument of ignorance! How do you know that I make a fallacy on "everything".

Still, a very cute and attractive - witty comeback statement.

R u female?? If your male please disregard the above "cute and attractive" statement.

Ooops, I thought the cute quip was from Kinich Ahau.
It is only cute and witty when / if delivered from K.A., from you Davin it is not - just mean.

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 - why don't you refute this, and we'll all be convinced -

https://godisimaginary.com/

[Sinfidel]

Or this -

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Again Davin you are being what I have affectionately call the "Evidence based Theologen".

No worries.

Andrew66 wrote

The notion of existence of an intelligent entity being immortal is only supported by the reasoned hypothesis provided at the outset of this post[...]

you mean the irrational argument that I showed was irrational and had you concede to me on every point? Calling it "reasoned" doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you misapply the term.

Andrew66 wrote

I admit there is no "reliable - hard - empirical - evidence"[...]

Great, then it is supernatural by definition.

Andrew66 wrote

But one cannot say for sure that immortals don't exist either.

Doesn't matter, without a natural explanation supported by reliable evidence, it is by definition, supernatural.

Andrew66 wrote

It seems that non intelligent things (e.g. sub-atomic particles - energy, mass) are immortal (law of conservation of energy), so why couldn't a higher order thing such as an intelligent entity also become immortal.?

Looks like you have a lot to learn about particles. They aren't alive in any non-poetic sense, but they do eventually expire or "die" in a poetic sense.

No surprise that you're ignorant of yet another subject you brought up.

[Andrew66]

[quote=Davin;687624] Great, then it is supernatural by definition.[quote]

I checked the definition of Supernatural - yes you are technically correct as the term is limited to describe constructs which are merely beyond what is known to science - at present.
However, if science and human understanding were to progress to show an immortal intelligent being - which you cannot deny may at least be a possibility, then at such time an immortal would no longer fall into the category of supernatural.
Still - good fact checking - and thank you! I thought supernatural meant beyond nature, regardless of what humans know of nature - but I was mistaken. This concession doesn't change the force of my argument however, and it is not wrong to hypothesize on a true existence of a "supernatural" entity.

Davin wrote

Looks like you have a lot to learn about particles. They aren't alive in any non-poetic sense, but they do eventually expire or "die" in a poetic sense.
.

However existence of particles (i.e. in sum, not any one particular particle at any one moment) is eternal, and energy (and therefore mass) is also eternal so in a way "immortal" - we know this by the law of conservation of energy. Now who has the deeper understanding!?

Also Davin, you mention a lot that my argument is irrational. Here is what you don't get- and its about symantics in rendering a hypothesis. Hypothesis is usually rendered in an affirmative manner. It is not meant to be a logical, deductive argument - just an argued assertion.

For example, I hypothesize that Global warning is caused by human CO2 emissions. I don't say I hypothesize that Global warming may be caused by human CO2 emissions. Understand?

However to your credit Davin, you probably don't deal in the world of the hypothetical like a medical researcher does - so it doesn't surprise me that you lack the above insights. Don't worry - I'm here to teach you!

So I "hypothesize"
1) Change is eternal. (if at any time the sum total of existence did not have the potential to change - then we would be "stuck" in a "frozen" state - which clearly isn't the case).
2) Existence has therefore experienced an infinite number of changes of state over an infinite temporal period.
3) By natural selection, beings of varying intelligence, resilience and power have arisen and became extinct.
4) Over an infinite period of time, eventually, an entity will have evolved to a threshold point whereby it became indestructible.
5) It is likely that such an indestructible being is extremely (if not maximally) powerful and intelligent.
6) Such indestructible being meets conditions coincident with what humans have declared as God.

Note, importantly the above hypothesis does not predict necessarily a good or evil God.

Note, the above hypothesis does not necessarily support that such God ever revealed itself to humans.

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

Andrew66 - why don't you refute this, and we'll all be convinced -

https://godisimaginary.com/

Thanks Sinfidel, this is an awesome link.

I should point out respectfully that the link really only attacks a sense of God from a point of view of organized religion - without any foundation of scientific or rational support (beyond 2000 year old "eye witness" testimony).

My argument (hypothesis), is that an immortal, super powerful being may really and truly exist in the universe - and that some of the characteristics of such a being would be necessarily coincidental with a God of Biblical standards.

Whether my superhero manifested to earthlings as Jesus Christ is the questionable link between hypothetical reasoned science and organized theology.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

I checked the definition of Supernatural - yes you are technically correct[...]

I know.

Andrew66 wrote

However existence of particles (i.e. in sum, not any one particular particle at any one moment) is eternal, and energy (and therefore mass) is also eternal so in a way "immortal" - we know this by the law of conservation of energy. Now who has the deeper understanding!?

clearly not you. Keep on demonstrating your ignorance, it's hilarious.

Andrew66 wrote

Also Davin, you mention a lot that my argument is irrational.

Because it is.

Andrew66 wrote

It is not meant to be a logical[...]

Then you shouldn't be calling it "reasoned."

Andrew66 wrote

However to your credit Davin, you probably don't deal in the world of the hypothetical like a medical researcher does

Do they deal with the world as irrationally as you do? Somehow I doubt that.

Andrew66 wrote

So I "hypothesize"
1) Change is eternal. (if at any time the sum total of existence did not have the potential to change - then we would be "stuck" in a "frozen" state - which clearly isn't the case).
2) Existence has therefore experienced an infinite number of changes of state over an infinite temporal period.
3) By natural selection, beings of varying intelligence, resilience and power have arisen and became extinct.
4) Over an infinite period of time, eventually, an entity will have evolved to a threshold point whereby it became indestructible.
5) It is likely that such an indestructible being is extremely (if not maximally) powerful and intelligent.
6) Such indestructible being meets conditions coincident with what humans have declared as God.

Wow, yet another irrational "hypothesis," and I mean that in the most colloquial way.

1) Unsupported premise.
2) Unsupported premise.
3) Hey, one that's not complete shit.
4) Baseless speculation.
5) Baseless speculation.
6) Baseless speculation.

What an irrational bullshit "hypothesis."

Andrew66 wrote

Note, importantly the above hypothesis does not predict necessarily a good or evil God.

Note, the above hypothesis does not necessarily support that such God ever revealed itself to humans.

Note: the above "hypothesis" does not predict or support anything. Might as well have not said anything for all the use this bullshit does.

[Andrew66]

Funny, I thought posit 3 was one of the weakest statements.
Ha Ha.
Posit 1 has support given (in parenthesis), then 2 follows from 1, you like 3 - agree the remainder is reasoned speculation.
But even as Spock would admit, with eyebrow raised -- "Possible!"

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Funny, I thought posit 3 was one of the weakest statements.

Well, that doesn't say much for your ability to think.

Andrew66 wrote

Posit 1 has support given (in parenthesis)

That's not support, that's baseless speculation.

Andrew66 wrote

then 2 follows from 1

It does not follow from 1. Even if we accepted 1, that change is eternal, it could have just started. It also doesn't say anything about going through all possible changes. If it switched between 2 states constantly, that's hardly an infinite amount of changes.

Andrew66 wrote

you like 3

Saying it's not complete shit is not saying I like something. It's just the least shit of all the other shit in the shit "hypothesis."

Andrew66 wrote

agree the remainder is reasoned speculation.

The remainder is irrational ramblings. Remember? You said:

Andrew66 wrote

It is not meant to be a logical, deductive argument

And it's not. Good job presenting irrational bullshit.

Andrew66 wrote

But even as Spock would admit, with eyebrow raised -- "Possible!"

I think that "possible" is too strong a term. It's more like you're essentially saying nothing at all.

[Andrew66]

Thanks Davin, my fellow Theologeon!

You have raised some good points, and obviously put some thought and work into them, I appreciate that.

I will try to amend.

I think posit 1 is better, based on your objections as

1) Potential for change is eternal.

I'll work on the rest later - but any objection to the above statement?

My rationale is that there could not have been any state at any time where the entire sum of existence could not have at least the potential to change (i.e at least from state 1 to state 2 etc.) - because then such universe would be forever frozen which clearly isn't the case.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Thanks Davin, my fellow Theologeon!

No worries, I offer my services for free. At least for the amusement value.

Andrew66 wrote

1) Potential for change is eternal.

I'll work on the rest later - but any objection to the above statement?

It doesn't fit in the argument... I'm sorry, "hypothesis," that way. It also requires you to bridge the gap from potential to actual. And it doesn't even solve the original problem of it being unsupported. And then of course the objections from 1 to 2 still stand.

[Andrew66]

Hi Davin
I've tried to support Posit 1 you've objected to (i.e. Potential for Change) with a logical argument.

1) At least part of the sum total of existence, as we presently experience it, is dynamically changing. - support, witness the present - we live in a temporally changing world.
2) If at any time (or state) prior to the present, the sum total of existence did not have the potential for change, then their could be no present change. - support, if sum total of existence was changeless and without potential for change, it would remain in a frozen fixed state forever thereafter which by our observation at present is clearly not the case.
3) Therefore there was always potential for change (aka Potential for change is eternal).

What could you possibly find wrong with this?

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

1) At least part of the sum total of existence, as we presently experience it, is dynamically changing. - support, witness the present - we live in a temporally changing world.
2) If at any time (or state) prior to the present, the sum total of existence did not have the potential for change, then their could be no present change. - support, if sum total of existence was changeless and without potential for change, it would remain in a frozen fixed state forever thereafter which by our observation at present is clearly not the case.
3) Therefore there was always potential for change (aka Potential for change is eternal).

1 is fine even if basically useless.
2 falls into the theists favorite: argument from ignorance. We don't know if something could start moving from not moving, we don't know anything about the state of the universe "before" the big bang. I put it in quotes because there might not have been a temporal "before" for the universe. Might even be that there are other universes. A universe could be "frozen" in a state and then a lone particle from another universe passes into it and starts a huge chain reaction that initiates rapid expansion... what I'm saying, is that you're trying to make an argument "not logical" "hypothesis" that fits a conclusion you've already come to. That's why all your arguments "not logical" "hypothesis'" are irrational shit.
3 doesn't follow from the premises.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

1 is fine even if basically useless.

I'll take it. I'm glad that your OK with a statement which by its wording is self evident. You've shown that you can accept a premise which is not supported by observed empirical evidence (i.e. that potential for change must be eternal) based on simple, self evident deductive reasoning.

I'm surprised, I thought you would object, but luckily you seem to value your credibility amidst your peers rather than your emotional wishes to insult and suppress my case for Theism (I'm glad)

Davin wrote

We don't know if something could start moving from not moving, ...

True we don't know!. We don't know if something (or more appropriate to the discussion - the sum total of everything) could of started moving from not moving. There is nothing that we have ever seen, or can even imagine that can do this as to human knowledge there is always a temporal cause and effect (Newtonian physics), or at least a temporally active, unstable environment (Quantum physics) which produces change.

Ironically it is Theists more than Atheists who invoke the concept that a changeless God (frozen as a basis from eternity), decided to start moving without a prior moving part - which I have always thought was unreasonable special pleading.

So for this reason I think the typical Theist suggestion that the sum total of existence was ever at any point temporally un-moving or "frozen" - and then for no good reason started moving -is "unreasonable".

This realization drives my theoretical argument that an environment which always had potential for change would actually realize those changes - and over an extremely long, and predictably infinately long temporal period a lot of evolution style happenings (perhaps infinite number) may have occurred a priori.

The next bridge is to examine whether "eternal potential for change" would have manifested to "infinite number of change events". Also, whether the type of change events are dynamic and moving forward in a manner which could potentially lead to evolution. These address your voiced concerns in earlier post.

Will work on modifying premise 2 of the theoretical argument with your objections in mind.

Thank you Professor.