Argument from natural cosmogenesis
This scientific model for cosmogenesis conforms with subtle temperature variations as seen in the CMBR.
Geometry is an abstraction which only a mind can appreciate. Hence Nous (Cosmic Intellect/God).
Here I again remind the careful reader of the distribution of theists among STEM practitioners.
Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste."
“Écrasez l’infâme!”
I believe Tertullian means to say that it’s silly that the son of God died and hence we have to believe that He did and that resurrection is impossible and hence also to be believed.
An astrophysicist quotes Tertullian in a debate, showcasing - according to him - the egregious violations of logical principles that religion resorts to.
By treating the death of the Son of God as absurd Tertullian means that it’s something like a talking rock or a walking tree and that the resurrection is a square circle or a married bachelor. Rocks don’t talk and trees don’t walk and square circles or married bachelors are impossible. Hence, Tertullian reasons, we should believe these claims.
Tertullian’s “reasons” are patently nonsensical, thus the Voltaire quotes in my previous post.
O day and night! But this is wondrous strange! ~ Horatio
It kinda meshes with the following view of God
God’s ways are higher. God’s ways are not our ways
God moves in a mysterious way ~ William Cowper
The monks of old didn’t just swallow the Jesus tale hook, line and sinker. They were rational and skeptical of the Christory. Hence the verdict absurd and impossible.
Voltaire
1755, The Great Lisbon quake, All Saints Day. People were inside churches, stone churches.
A summary of the discussion, conclusions reached
It’s very simple, consciousness can’t emerge out of nothing. There has to be a source. I believe that source is God. Nobody has ever been able to prove that consciousness emerged out of physical matter, because it’s impossible.
That is why I believe consciousness cannot ultimately be reduced to matter alone, and that its true foundation must lie beyond the physical.
Have you got an argument for why it is impossible?
In order for subjective experience to emerge out of nothingness, you would have to assume that there is nothing beyond the physical system no soul, no underlying consciousness, nothing that could account for the existence of experience itself. But we clearly have subjective experience and consciousness. We aren’t merely biological machines behaving like robots we actually experience the world from a first-person perspective
The OOO-God is well-defined and if we work within the parameters set down indeed it’s very simple - just a matter of whether it goes or does not. That’s exactly why God isn’t disproven or proven. You may also work on other relevant aspects of the issue to come to a conclusion that is more acceptable e.g. agnostic atheism or dystheism.
The topic was consciousness emerging from physical matter, not conciousness emerging from nothingness.
Do you have an argument for your assertion about consciousness and physical matter which I quoted?
If by “prove God” you mean demonstrating God’s existence with absolute certainty from a human perspective, that standard is impossible for human reason alone to meet with absolute certainty.
History has shown that God is understood to reveal Himself selectively, sometimes through dreams, visions, or even direct encounters. If God chooses to remain unknown or does not reveal Himself in a way that is universally undeniable,
then God’s hiddenness does not necessarily mean that God does not exist. It means that God has chosen not to make His existence coercively obvious for all beings for some reason.
We have a name for that, Deus absconditus (God is hidden, unknowable).
We also have YHWH, a bimoral deity and Nebro/Angra Mainyu (evil deity) for dystheism. You may want to take these seriously - suffering is unimaginable. This is my other thread on God.
Yes, if you have proof the OOO-God doesn’t exist, I don’t mind some of that. Don’t ask me for Proof(God doesn’t exist/exists) because I’m not in possession of any.
It’s not that possible to prove that God doesn’t exist. We are all humans here, we don’t even know if something outside of our universe really exists, let alone God, whom some claim is literally outside the whole universe.
Nonetheless, there is no direct or indirect evidence of this “OOO-God” (or any supernatural / separate-from-nature agencies) and therefore there are no objective grounds to believe this “OOO-God” is anything more than an ad hoc imaginary construct (e.g. ideal projection à la Feuerbach, et al).
@LordKing777 Ok. Thanks, although in my summary I talked about Nous, Deus Malus
@180Proof What about an evil/bimoral deity? Would you agree that such is better-evidenced (PoS)?
“An evil/bimoral deity” is certainly more consistent with both the human condition and nature than a “OOO God”.
Lovely. It seems to be a well-supported corollary of atheism with respect to the OOO-God of philosophy and religion.
It must be said though that the OOO-God isn’t really disproven/proven. It just doesn’t go that well with the PoS.
And given that “an evil/bimoral deity” doesn’t make any objective difference to the human condition or in nature as we experience them, believing it is real is useless (even delusional).