Arguments about Him-that square circle

While I have no real quarrel with your argument, the "chance faeries" take just about as much to believe in as the "cause faeries," as neiher have any real backing besides assumption.

1. The deliberate, uncaused-cause primary mind model doesn't require a logical absurdity (infinite regress, something-from-nothing, something causing itself).

2. For chance to be responsible for the telelogical order we see, one requires infinite instances (occam "entities") of "just so" chance, whereas teleology from deliberacy requires only one instance (entity) of an orchestrating mind.

The universe without teleology is highly non-parsiminous; the better explanation via Occam's Razor is god.

While I have no real quarrel with your argument, the "chance faeries" take just about as much to believe in as the "cause faeries," as neiher have any real backing besides assumption.

"1. The deliberate, uncaused-cause primary mind model doesn't require a logical absurdity (infinite regress, something-from-nothing, something causing itself)."

So God is the uncaused-cause? why can't that just be the universe? it saves us a step

I've already answered that. Hint: infinite regress, cause-and-effect, creatio ex nihilo, Lazarus Long.

I've already answered that

NO you haven`t

Hint: infinite regress, cause-and-effect, creatio ex nihilo, Lazarus Long

Hint, thats just your subjective opinion

Felix wrote

the "chance faeries" take just about as much to believe in as the "cause faeries," as neiher have any real backing besides assumption.

Exactomondo

Since when is my name Felix?

Creatio ex nihilo suggests that something came from nothing, but that is to suggest something came at all. This would disprove God as much as the universe.

You might need such a new myth. I do not.

But we poor automata do however.

The naturalist infinte regress argument stiupulates that cause, event and time presuppose previous causes,events and time.
That " nothing" is hardly nothing as it is the quantum fiels, pulsating with energy!
Natural causes and explanations- the presumption of naturalism- fit the fact of simplicity for the Razor whilst Richard Swinburne's notion of His simplicity cannot,because of His convoluted, ad hoc assumptions! Quite the opposite,eh,Meleagar?
Please study Rationalist Griggy's OP as it would inform you of why supernaturalsim cannot get off the ground! Note why teleology is not at all apparent but a mere pareidolia!
RG.,SG. posts 43

"Teleology is not only evident, it is obvious, and it is necessary unless one wishes to appeal to "the chance faeries" as means of maintaining their atheistic faith."

While I have no real quarrel with your argument, the "chance faeries" take just about as much to believe in as the "cause faeries," as neiher have any real backing besides assumption.

Except that chance does not explain the incredible order found in the universe that is a fourteen billion year long history of succession and evolution towards what have been clearly identifiable "ends," i.e., life and the existence of conscious, rational biological beings.

The very fact that evolution has resulted in beings that can ask and act upon the question "Why?" means that purpose is embedded in the fabric of existence. If our existence is merely the result of random chance events, for what evolutionary reason would we have developed the ability and need to reflect upon the "Why?" or purpose of things? Why would we not merely respond in a causally determined , i.e., merely physical, fashion to events around us?

If there is no teleological order, why have we evolved to consider the ideas of meaning and purpose at all? Would this very process of recursive thought even be possible in a merely physical cosmos? The "chance faeries" could not bring this about except as a coincidental result, yet to thinking beings this process is not a trivial, coincidental endeavour - meaning and purpose are the staples necessary for meaningful thought and dialogue.

Scientists only find teleonomy- no planned outcomes rather teleology-planned outcomes as George Gylord Simpson in "The Life of the Past], Ernst Mayr [ orginal to use term teleonomy against teleolgy] in " What Evolution Is" and Paul B. Weisz [ using the term causalism rather than teleonomy] in " The Science of Biology."
As Weisz notes, teleology means the past before the first, the event before the cause, thereby negating time.
OTavern, you are begging the question of those purposes-planned outcomes. Natural selection is the non-planning,anti-chance agency of Nature. Yes,a meaningless Cosmos can deliver purposeful beings! Please stop with the argument from incredulity! Theology depends on the argument from ignorance, begged questions and- the argument from incredulity!
"Logic is the bane of theists."
Thus, as no demarcation line exists betwxist science and other matters, but rather the demarcation line exists betwixt it and errors.

[b] Nay, Alun. Even He must obey the rules of logic.

Many religious views claim that God does not have to obey the rules of logic. "Miracles" don't obey the rules of logic. For "God" to "exist" before "existence" "existed", is to defy logic.

Juice,as noted above,people rationalize in thinking that prayer works other than as a form of meditation. Should someone get better, they claim that He did it when they commit the fallacy of post hoc-coincidence- and should someone die, then it was His will as with heads I win,tales you lose! Remissions happen ubiquitously, so prayer has nothing to do!

The 9-11 hijackers had more faith in "Allah" on that morning, than most Christians will have in their entire lives. Surely there were more people on those planes praying for something else to happen--and yet we know how things turned out.

God is crying--

No, God is not.

Keith, those who claim that God makes logic first must proffer evidence for that rather than prattle that! Again, they are begging the question of that power to make logic.
No, as no intent lies behind natural causes, then He cannot make miracles, which perforce are always natural outcomes, not magical ones! You must proffer evidence of actual miracles in order to overcome Hume's argument about miracles, a corollary of the presumption of naturalism.
We gnu atheists require that supernaturalists proffer [give] evidence not only about His role in logic and His having intent but also about Heaven and Hell and contra-causal free will [ no causes as well as establishing non-contradictory and coherent attributes for Him.

Again, science does establish that no intent. Lamberth's argument from pareidolia notes that supernaturalists see the pareidolias of intent and design when only teleonomy- no planned outcomes. Again, per the atelic argument, supernaturalists beg that question of planned outcomes that they think are ever so evident but really are only an example of pareidolia- no there there!

Does Thor have intent behind the weather and climate? Does Poseidon have intent for waves and sea storms? To find that intent then is perforce- by necessity- an example of pareidolia!

Stop with the anthropomorphising,please advance beyond animism, but then theology is the subject of the one Supreme Spirit animism! Monotheism then perforce is no step beyond polytheism and animism!

Keith, please stop with that anthropomorphising of animism! Yes, theology means justifying one Supreme Spirit rather than the many, and cannot advance perforce -by necessity- beyond animism and polytheism!

Supernaturalists see intent and design per Lamberth's argument from pareidolia rather than what is actually there teleonomy- no wanted outcomes- and patterns.

The atelic argument finds that supernaturalists beg the question of those planned outcomes. Study Jerry Coyne's " Believing and Seeing" @ Talk Reason where he eviscerates those planned outcomes and also Amiel Rossow's essay on the yin and yang of Kenneth Miller where he establishes that the latter takes ID out the front door, only to bring it back throuogh the back one as directed evolution.
Natural selection is the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature, needing no divine intent, which intent would contradict it and other natural causes rather than complement them!
No, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnz errs in his finding the principle of sufficient reason that all phenomena depend on that external intent. His big blunder is to ask why is there anything rather than nothing,which is a pseudo-question with the pseudo-answer of that Supreme Spirit. It cannot be otherwise:
What supernaturalists are ever doing is to deny that order and regularity and existence inhere in Nature itself.

That is no more logical or probable than finding gremlins or demons as the Ultimate Reason in mechamics and psychology,resctively.
To that I note that Lord Russell's tea pot and the Santa Claus arguments apply as they, too can have their "theologies" to back them up.
Some people claim that God is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person, but just the Explanation for the world, but then,too, so is the celestial tea pot, contrary to some theologian! And thus, it too, advances no knowledge but obfuscation!
As Coyne,I think, notes Santa is the reason for Christmas gift-giving as it takes His intent for people to give gifts, and no, as he is metaphysical,skeptics cannot deny him. Yes, the same kind of rationalizations apply to Santa as to God! He,too, is working in the world!

Incoherent and non-evidenced matters belong with phlogiston in the trash pile of history!
The supernatural posits no advancement of knowledge and no explanation beyond natural causes, ever making for obfuscation! Ockham's Razor notes that supernaturalists defend Him with convvoluted, ad hoc assumptions, themselves lacking support! He is the Supreme Mystery, surrounded by still other mysteries, never advancing knowledge,ever obfuscating!
I just had made a similar post that appears as a draft, which overlaps and complements this one.

total posts as rationalist griggsy, ignostic morgan and skeptic griggsy 51 .

The notion of teleology, if stripped of its usual anthropocentric connotations, can be both meaningful and useful. Some may object that without the inclusion of any kind of designer it is better called teleonomy. I have no quarrel with that. Without initial or final cause, "directionality" might be used, but in my view this is a little too weak to describe the observed evolutionary continuum.
For an expansion upon this please consult my latest work "The Goldilocks Effect", the e-book edition of which is a free download from the "Unusual Perspectives" website

And, of course, whatever is wrong with infinite regress? It renders many of the theistic assumptions of telology, first cause and such a non-issue. The universe as infinitely regressive along with incidental consequence are all that's needed. And, if you want a teleology that negates theism, I have an answer for that as well.

OMS...Ontological Metaphysical Supernature...not to be confused with the supernatural. With OMS attributes being the unintended driver of process refinement, whose mechanism is evolution in all of its various stages. Thus we have a third option from which to choose whose explanatory power supercedes both naturalism and supernaturalism whilst providing a foundational gathering of all relevant empirical theoretics across all scientific disciplines.

In my resolution the universe exists as an incidental consequence of OMS existence. The universe ever changes in a direction of emergent complexity driven by polar opposition to OMS attributes. Contra-distinction. I can use the example of a shadow as being analogous to the existence of the universe, relative to OMS existence. Shadows, BTW, are faster than light. I also use the fact of the moons proximity to the earth as the cause of our oceans tides analogous to the way OMS attributes drive the process refinement we observe as the universe evolving towards more and more complexity and sophistication in its natural technology. Infinite regress, (or an eternal universe without beginning) is supported theoretically by the mechanism of dynamic equilibrium that thwarts the effects of entropic equilibrium. Philosophically I can show the dualistic nature of reality as polar opposites, such as light and darkness, absolutes and relatives, objectives and subjectives, thus when I speak of contra-distinction in reference to OMS attributes and the universe's propensity to evolve complexity, I am not begging the question or special pleading, since I have both precedence and theoretic/philosophical support for this phenomenon. Hence the universe unfolds, (which I call process refinement, seeing as reality is a conglomeration of processes), in polar opposition to OMS attributes. The only attribute they share being eternal existence, including infinite regress. The universe exists in a state of flux. OMS exists in a stasis. All existent things within the universe are temporal...OMS is eternal. The universe tends towards complexity...OMS remains as simple as a quantum fluctuation. OMS is non-sentient...thus pushing the universe to evolve a sentient property. OMS is unchangeable...the universe is ever changing. OMS is the foundation around which the universe revolves in dynamic equilibrium. OMS is empirically verifiable once our artificial technology complexifies enough to locate the actual axis of the universe. And this is only the tip of the iceberg of how my resolution actually explains and answers all these alleged "hard" questions, both scientific, philosophical and metaphysical.

Man invented gods as a response to his awareness of being lost in a world/universe whose vastness and complexity he would have otherwise been unable to cope with. We cannot blame our ancestors for this, they made what to them appeared to be the most intuitively satisfying leap they could devise...and did a darn good job of it. Were it not for their resourcefulness and creativity we would not be here today to discuss these issues. But we already have enough evidence to fathom their mistake was to assume that whatever was responsible for all this majestic and frightening complexity had to be even more majestic, frightening and complex still. Now we know that complexity can naturally emerge from very simple combinations over time...but not without a driver...polar opposition to OMS. Otherwise the universe may have revolved around simplicity for all of eternity, never progressing towards anything capable of asking these types of questions.

All we need is a foundation. Histories, which is what cosmologies have been about since their inception, are a waste of time. We need to refocus our energies and efforts towards ascertaining where we are in the universe, not just where we are in this galaxy. We need to realize the universe is vast...much more vast than our current levels of math can compute...which is why most of the models eventuate in infinities...that our look back time of some 13 billion years is not the age of the universe but the distance to its horizon, beyond which we cannot see until we amplify our artificial technology to enhance our natural technological systems of sensory perception. That what we're mistakenly calling a big bang was nothing more than a local bang in this quandrant to compensate for entropic conditions...the mechanism of dynamic equilibrium.

There's more...much more...but that's all I've got to say for now.

What arguments about Him do you find valid,pro or con?
Why would any rational person desire to worship when as autonomous beings, nothing requires us to worship anyway per Lamberth's argument from autonomy.
Due to our level of consciousness,in line with Morgan's Canon, and the UN Charter of Human Rights, we are indeed free beings, whom no God has rights over us, but who would fact that one-way stree noted at Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven.
No disembodied being or -soul can exist per the argument from physical minds. Evidence only exist for our type. When our brains have problems, so do our minds. The soul lacks explanatory value.
How could a such a mind have intent,especially, when as noted, no intent lies behind the Cosmos?
Supernaturalists query from personal incredulity why existence rather than non-existence and answer with that non-explanation- God.
Whynot and Belinda, I invite you to post @ http;//fathergriggs.wordpress.com
http://carneades.aimoo.com
http;//skepticgriggsyspeaks.blogspot.com