From Solipsism to God

[IWantGod]

Evolutionary theory is formed from material evidence

Exactly. And your interpretation is a product of your materialism, not the evidence.

To accuse me of conflating evolution with something on which it is based is nonsensical.

That’s exactly what you have done, you have conflated science with materialism, and it is non-nonsensical because i’m pretty sure that current theory does not push the idea that birds reason and rationalise about flying south for the winter.

Then I’m pretty certain that if I asked you where it came from then you’d say God

Blind physical processes cannot create plans or goal direction. Not even intention.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Evolutionary theory is formed from material evidence

Exactly. And your interpretation is a product of your materialism not the evidence.

Then I’m pretty certain that if I asked you where it came from then you’d say God

Blind physical processes cannot create plans or goal direction. Not even intention.

So where did this ability to create plans come from? It’s not blind so it could be all-seeing. It’s not physical so it must be immaterial. And whatever it is has our interests at heart to give us this ability in the first place.

Any ideas?

Edit: And by the way, apes (and other mammals such as dolphins) most definitely show planning, foresight and an ability to think ahead).

 

[IWantGod]

So where did this ability to create plans come from? It’s not blind so it could be all-seeing. It’s not physical so it must be immaterial. And whatever it is has our interests at heart to give us this ability in the first place.

If you take the subject matter seriously at all, i’ll let you figure it out.

 

[IWantGod]

Edit: And by the way, apes (and other mammals such as dolphins) most definitely show planning, foresight and an ability to think ahead).

And birds fly south for the winter.

Koko my personal favourite by the way.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So where did this ability to create plans come from? It’s not blind so it could be all-seeing. It’s not physical so it must be immaterial. And whatever it is has our interests at heart to give us this ability in the first place.

If you take the subject matter seriously at all, i’ll let you figure it out.

I’d like you to confirm it. I think you want to say it’s God. Am I correct? In which case you have solved the problem without needing nine points. Your premise is based on the fact that God exists (because He gave us that ability) so just put that at point one.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Edit: And by the way, apes (and other mammals such as dolphins) most definitely show planning, foresight and an ability to think ahead).

And birds fly south for the winter.

I’m sure you believe that God gave them that ability. Just as you believe that He gave us the ability to plan with intent.

 

[IWantGod]

I’d like you to confirm it. I think you want to say it’s God. Am I correct? In which case you have solved the problem without needing nine points. Your premise is based on the fact that God exists (because He gave us that ability) so just put that at point one.

No need, premise 1 follows through to premise 9, and since a blind natural process is not an intentional action, a blind natural process cannot be the ultimate cause or essentially comprise intentionality and rational thinking. To state otherwise is a contradiction.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’d like you to confirm it. I think you want to say it’s God. Am I correct? In which case you have solved the problem without needing nine points. Your premise is based on the fact that God exists (because He gave us that ability) so just put that at point one.

No need, premise 1 follows through to premise 9, and since a blind natural process is not an intentional action, a blind natural process cannot be the ultimate cause of intentionality and rational thinking.

You are starting to repeat yourself. But where did it come from? What is the cause?

 

[IWantGod]

You are starting to repeat yourself.

I wish i didn’t have to, but that’s life.

But where did it come from? What is the cause?

If it’s not a natural process, then the cause is intelligent.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You are starting to repeat yourself. But where did it come from? What is the cause?

If it’s not a natural process, then the cause is intelligent.

Then why don’t you simply say it was God? You did in the very first post if you remember. Why the reticence now?

1. It must be an intelligent cause.

Conclusion: This is God

Now all you need to do is state point 9 at the begining. It needs no set up. It needs no premises. It’s a bald fact:

1. God gave us the ability to plan intentionally.

 

[IWantGod]

God gave us the ability to plan intentionally.

We can agree on that at least.

 

[Freddy]

Just to confirm what you can’t do…

It doesn’t matter how many points you make, how many premises you supply, if the conclusion you are aiming for is inherrent in ANY of those steps you take then the exercise collapses in a heap. Whether it was point one or pont one hundred and one it falls over at that point and you cannot go any further.

God is required for point 9 and as God is meant to be the conclusion the argument fails.

 

[IWantGod]

It doesn’t matter how many points you make, how many premises you supply, if the conclusion you are aiming for is inherrent in ANY of those steps you take then the exercise collapses in a heap. Whether it was point one or pont one hundred and one it falls over at that point and you cannot go any further.

I am aware that you are trying to imply that i am making a circular argument but that’s not the reality of the situation.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It doesn’t matter how many points you make, how many premises you supply, if the conclusion you are aiming for is inherrent in ANY of those steps you take then the exercise collapses in a heap. Whether it was point one or pont one hundred and one it falls over at that point and you cannot go any further.

I am aware that you are trying to imply that i am making a circular argument but that’s not the reality of the situation.

It’s not circular. It’s a one stop argument. It was linear right up to that point at which it stopped. You assumed the conclusion in a premise.

 

[IWantGod]

God is required for point 9 and as God is meant to be the conclusion the argument fails.

It proves the existence of a necessary act of reality that is intelligent and created all other intellects, or maybe just one if your a solipsist. This is God

 

[IWantGod]

It’s not circular. It’s a one stop argument. It was linear right up to that point at which it stopped. You assumed the conclusion in a premise.

That is not true. In fact it’s obviously not true.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

God is required for point 9 and as God is meant to be the conclusion the argument fails.

It proves the existence of a necessary act of reality that is intelligent and created all other intellects, or maybe just one if your a solipsist. This is God

I’m repeating myself now. I don’t think I can add anything further.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m repeating myself now. I don’t think I can add anything further.

Thanks…

 

[lelinator]

I think you know exactly what i mean.

I’m never sure that I know exactly what you mean. And you and Freddy seem to be having a very lively discussion, so I’ll just pop in here for a second, and try to lay out your objection as I see it. Then you can tell me if I’m close. If so, then we can go on from there.

1. The necessary cause is eternal, it has existed from the beginning of time.
2. As far as I can tell, my thought process is also eternal, as it too may have existed since the beginning of time. In fact, my thought process may in some sense be the very cause of time.

In both cases, they could only have existed since the beginning of time, because there’s no such thing as “before” the beginning of time. So they both must have a beginning, at what each would perceive to be, the beginning of time.

But your argument, as I understand it, focuses on the one obvious difference between the two. The necessary cause as you understand it, never changes. In fact it can’t change. On the other hand, change would seem to be an unavoidable necessity of my thought process. This means that my thought process carries within itself the need for its own beginning. However, an unchanging cause doesn’t carry within itself the need for a beginning. It could go on like that forever. That I think is the difference that you’re referring to. My consciousness carries within itself the need for a beginning, while an unchanging cause possesses no such restriction. It has no intrinsic need for a beginning.

I realize that you wouldn’t have framed your argument the same way that I did, but hopefully I got the gist of it right. If not, feel free to correct me. But at least now we may have a better basis upon which to continue our discussion.

 

[IWantGod]

The necessary cause as you understand it, never changes. In fact it can’t change.

I agree

On the other hand, change would seem to be an unavoidable necessity of my thought process.

It’s simply the fact that what your thoughts are doing cannot happen without change. It’s impossible, because it is self-evidently a process.

Others factors arise such as the fact that your thoughts are a limited act of reality since they are a sequence of actualised potential. It’s never complete in it’s actuality. Any being which changes does not have the fullness of it’s own existence because it is always potentially more real and what it has in potential it lacks in act until it actualizes.

That which is fundamental to all possibilities has the fullness of it’s own reality quite simply because it is the source of all other realities. It cannot be said to be limited or lacking anything true to what it is. Therefore it cannot be said that it is potentially anything other than what it already is - forever unchanging.