[Sooth]

(03-25-2016 03:36 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

The point is that God is not above everything.

Well you're talking about a different God to what Christians believe in. You may as well be talking about Zeus.

The Christian God is believed to be above everything. Infinite and eternal in perfection, holiness, unchanging in character etc.

How can God do wrong when the whole concept of morality is based off his unchanging perfect nature?

[Atheistani]

Things require order to exist. Nothing can exist where there is no order. For instance the laws of physics are pretty much unchanging and their uniform consistency is what allows things to exists. Where the laws of physics breakdown (and if there are no equivalent) laws then nothing can exist, as in a singularity. In such a place we may conceive a person turning into a flying pig then a beam of light that breaks into 5 parts each becoming something else, all random unpredictability and chaos. This is no 'existence'.

Similarly for god to exist he must be subject to some laws that allow for his 'unchanging' nature. Therefore, such 'Natural Laws' are above God, the same as for Zeus.

[Pride male]

Has anyone read the Blind Watchmaker? Thoughts?

[Phoenix]

(03-25-2016 03:57 AM)Sooth Wrote:  

How can God do wrong when the whole concept of morality is based off his unchanging perfect nature?

Statements like this, a purely religious statement, are useful for studying what religion is. How can a child debate such an abstract statement? He can't, old people are better at this than young people because their brains are fully developed. When the child is then told this omnipotent entity will remember his every wrong and right deed (the elder then enumerates those), and will reward and punish accordingly, he is programmed in that manner. This is the nature of religion -- it is intergenerational and smart-against-stupid behavior control. Older smarter people (who can win at sophistry more frequently) imbue psychological control over their lessers or youngers.

By engaging in the debate about 'god', you merely assume the role of the child. There is no such thing, but it was never about that. The grown man merely does one of the following: ignore them, flee them, fight them, or join them. When someone says "that's immoral and you shouldn't do it because my god says so", the reponse is to say one of "aha yeah sure I know", "stay the fuck away from me", "you are trying to control me, and I will not submit", or "yes I agree and I'm sending my kids to your church". Only the child submits himself by listening to or arguing with theology.

[Atlanta Man]

No.

[Sooth]

(03-25-2016 09:03 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 03:57 AM)Sooth Wrote:  

How can God do wrong when the whole concept of morality is based off his unchanging perfect nature?

Statements like this, a purely religious statement, are useful for studying what religion is. How can a child debate such an abstract statement? He can't, old people are better at this than young people because their brains are fully developed. When the child is then told this omnipotent entity will remember his every wrong and right deed (the elder then enumerates those), and will reward and punish accordingly, he is programmed in that manner. This is the nature of religion -- it is intergenerational and smart-against-stupid behavior control. Older smarter people (who can win at sophistry more frequently) imbue psychological control over their lessers or youngers.

By engaging in the debate about 'god', you merely assume the role of the child. There is no such thing, but it was never about that. The grown man merely does one of the following: ignore them, flee them, fight them, or join them. When someone says "that's immoral and you shouldn't do it because my god says so", the reponse is to say one of "aha yeah sure I know", "stay the fuck away from me", "you are trying to control me, and I will not submit", or "yes I agree and I'm sending my kids to your church". Only the child submits himself by listening to or arguing with theology.

So are you saying that anyone who debates religion is childish because there is always someone smarter and older than you who is imbuing psychological control over you?

Though the statement you quoted is of a religious nature, it's still perfectly logical and can therefore be tested against other known truths.

"How can a bachelor be married when the whole concept of bachelorhood is based off one being unmarried?"

[Paracelsus]

(03-25-2016 07:37 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Has anyone read the Blind Watchmaker? Thoughts?

In essence it's a book-length discussion of evolution and a book-length straw man.

He spends most of the book basically recapitulating Darwin and thrashing to death the analogy of the watchmaker, which was proposed 50 years before Charles Darwin and which was a flawed argument by reason of its premises and analogy ab initio, not because of the triumphant theory of evolution.

Not to mention a couple of Dawkins' conclusions reach rather further than he's qualified to do. Again, Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher. Rather than restrict evolution to Darwin's view -- that natural selection, rather than divine design, was the best explanation for gradual change in populations over many generations -- he goes on to reach for genes as carrying, in effect, the entire meaning of existence. He commits the same sin that he flays many religions for: he proposes that he has found a single, universal truth that explains existence.

It's the same viewpoint as espoused in The Selfish Gene, same old modernist science as Pavlovian behaviourism, and neither satisfactorily explain altruism with any of the sort testable rigour as, say, the law of gravity. Or many other non-survival-based behaviours. Human beings keep doing inconvenient things for the theory like being kind to people outside their family, community, race, or even species.

Dawkins demonstrates his limitations philosophically when he attacks the straw man of the watchmaker analogy by suggesting that it implies that the watch's creator must necessarily be more complex than the watch, and therefore that God must be infinitely complex himself to have created the universe. Design is top-down; therefore the designer is more complex than the created item.

Two objections to that attack on the straw man (aside from the fact that, y'know, it's a straw man):

(1) If a creator must be forever be more complex than its creation, then by definition humanity will never have anything to fear from artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence will never become more complex than the human brain and therefore never any smarter than a human being. The contrary is true: many physicists and computer scientists alike are afraid of artificial intelligence precisely because they fear it will become superior to its creator, and Moore's Law all but predicts a computer's complexity and power will surpass that of humanity within the next hundred years.

(2) Dawkins makes the same mistake as Paley: he analogises. Hume attacked both Paley and by extension Dawkins for the form of the argument back in the 1700s, well before Darwin's voyage: Hume notes that we have no experience of world making. Hume highlighted the fact that everything we claim to know the cause of, we have derived these inductions from previous experiences of similar objects being created, or seen the object itself being created ourselves. For example, with a watch we know it has to be created by a watch-maker because we can observe it being made and compare it to the making of other similar watches or objects to deduce they have alike causes in their creation. However, he argues that we have no experience of the universe's creation, or any other universe's creations to compare our own universe to, and never will. (The most powerful radio telescope giving us echoes of the Big Bang will not alleviate this, either: a goldfish cannot ever observe what the fishbowl looked like before water was poured into it or the fish put into the water.)

This is a flaw in Dawkins' argument as well because of his assumption that a creator must always be of greater complexity than its creation; it is an utterly meaningless proposal because there is no way of testing that thesis.

Only literal creationists still resort to the Watchmaker Analogy, because it's an argument for directly observable intelligent design, which is Dawkins' real target. No thinking Christian for roughly two hundred years has used that argument as a support for his faith.

[Atheistani]

Have any Christians seen this vid? Their thoughts?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBbwIzIpSLk

[Pride male]

If God were a firefighter.

[Phoenix]

(03-25-2016 04:46 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

So are you saying that anyone who debates religion is childish because there is always someone smarter and older than you who is imbuing psychological control over you?

No, I believe that debating the existence of someone else's deities, and debating the truth of the tales of their mythical characters they tell, is childish (in a literal 'assuming the role of the child' way). Debating the nature of religion is not. These are two different things.

[Pride male]

If God werent invisible.

[Pride male]

If God were a car.

[iop890]

These videos are cringe as fuck.

[Paracelsus]

(03-26-2016 06:45 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

These videos are cringe as fuck.

Even more amusing is that their central premise (comparing God to X object or Y professional for the purpose of ridicule) are in each and every case a Watchmaker Analogy ... which approach Dawkins ridicules in The Blind Watchmaker. They attempt to make an analogue of God, which is logically impossible, as Hume noted three hundred years ago.

[Comte De St. Germain]

It appears "Pride Male" as he's called didn't take the hint last time I said it. I think the forum members on this thread are putting out excellent arguments with few exceptions, yet he continues to shitpost videos/small quips.

Can you speak for yourself? Can you argue a point? Are you even a man? A man atleast has the dignity to argue for himself even if he may be wrong. Why are you using the other's words in their entirety to support your supposed worldview?

Posting those videos is like posting Buzzfeed on the forum. Absolute bilge trying to substitute "humor" for substance. Even the newbie with 10 posts is atleast speaking himself in order to prove a point.

On why I'm not commenting on this issue anymore and bitching instead is because many of the people posting are showing more coherent arguments than ones I have knowledge of or would argue. I'd much rather watch them debate this and learn than shitpost every few minutes. You're ruining this insightful discussion.

[Truth Teller]

I'd like to add that I put a fairly detailed refutation of Ken Humphrey's Jesus Never Existed up, and I've yet to see any type of response.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(03-26-2016 06:24 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 04:46 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

So are you saying that anyone who debates religion is childish because there is always someone smarter and older than you who is imbuing psychological control over you?

No, I believe that debating the existence of someone else's deities, and debating the truth of the tales of their mythical characters they tell, is childish (in a literal 'assuming the role of the child' way). Debating the nature of religion is not. These are two different things.

I think people arguing the existence of an omnipotent creator/idea/force with bits of discussion on the roots of Christianity. We're not imposing morals here or saying X religion is right.

Why do you feel this discussion(not one talking about the morals of religion as you've assumed) is wrong?

[Paracelsus]

(03-25-2016 06:53 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Things require order to exist. Nothing can exist where there is no order.
For instance the laws of physics are pretty much unchanging and their uniform consistency is what allows things to exists. Where the laws of physics breakdown (and if there are no equivalent) laws then nothing can exist, as in a singularity. In such a place we may conceive a person turning into a flying pig then a beam of light that breaks into 5 parts each becoming something else, all random unpredictability and chaos. This is no 'existence'.

To properly discuss these assertions, we would need to better define what "order", "things", and "exist" mean.

These are not merely semantic issues. It is very, very simple to fall into what is known as Category Error in this area: a failure to define the problem sufficiently to make rational debate possible.

"Order", for example, is an ambiguous term. To what extent do things require order, and at what level - the macro, micro, or somewhere in-between? At one level, the suggestion that order is required for things to exist can be refuted: quantum physics reveals to us a practically-chaotic subatomic universe, one where it is necessarily impossible to adjudge a particle's velocity and position at once, one where only probabilities for the positions of particles can be adjudged. This chaos is one of the biggest problems for physics in the sense that it is difficult to reconcile quantum physics and Newtonian mechanics; what should operate at the macro level doesn't in fact seem to at the micro level.

(03-25-2016 06:53 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Similarly for god to exist he must be subject to some laws that allow for his 'unchanging' nature. Therefore, such 'Natural Laws' are above God, the same as for Zeus.

Leaving aside the problem of potential Category Error, the propositions here are advanced a priori without demonstrating the basis for doing so. Upon what rationale 'must' God be subject to some laws, and if so, why should those laws be perceptible or comprehensible to us? For these assertions to be correct, God must be part and parcel of the universe as we perceive it to exist. This is not, and has never been, the sole or ideal model of God that man has been able to conceive over the millennia.

On top of that, what do we mean when we say God must "exist"? Do we mean perceptible to our five senses, detectable in the electromagnetic spectrum, something else? Why must God's "existence" conform to our expectations of existence?

[Atheistani]

I'm sure you know what I mean by the term 'exists'. Infact, given the question " Does God exist" I expect most people would consider the term 'God' more ambiguous than 'exist'. For the sake of the argument I would say something exists if it is represented somewhere in the Physical world i.e reality or existence. Order is present when a set of Laws are applied uniformly ( whether we have discovered those laws or not).

That we have no Grand Unifying Theory does not mean one does not exist. Nevertheless, though there may be seemingly 'random' events in quantum space, quantum space does in fact follow uniform laws, see Quantum Physics (note that quantum entaglement can be used in computation and other human applications).

It is not a question of why God's existence must conform to our idea of Reality (ie the Physical world or Existence) but of why must we break our Whole, Uniform and Ordered Reality to allow for an existence of such a God. Everything else conforms to and is subjected to Ordered Existence, God seems to be the one thing that breaks this system of Order and Harmony.

"For these assertions to be correct, God must be part and parcel of the universe as we perceive it to exist. This is not, and has never been, the sole or ideal model of God that man has been able to conceive over the millennia"

Respectfuly this is not correct and is likely a viewpoint a result of a Judeo-Christian (incomplete) version of the history of religious ideas. Early Pagan religions did not see (any) god to be standing above the Laws of Existence. Also, the abrahamix relgions get most of their ideas from Zoroastrianism ( maybe not worth debating here) which is a religion only one-step removed from pure pagan vedic religion. So, Abrahamic monotheism can be seen as a development out of IE paganism, refuting your claim that it has the original conception of 'God'.

In the Vedic religion this idea of Ordered Reality was called Rta and from wikipedia:

"Rta appears most frequently as representing abstract concepts such as "law", "commandment", "order", "sacrifice", "truth", and "regularity", but also occasionally as concrete objects such as the waters, the heavens or the sun as manifestations of the operation of ṚRta in the physical universe."

More importantly,
"Despite the abundance of such references, the gods are never portrayed as having command over ṚRta. Instead, the gods, like all created beings, remain subject to ṚRta, and their divinity largely resides in their serving it in the role of executors, agents or instruments of its manifestation.[15] As Day (1982) notes, the gods "do not govern ṚRta so much as immanentalize it through the particularities of divine ordinances and retributions concerning both rewards and punishments. In this sense they do not "govern" Ṛta; they serve it as agents and ministers".

I believe its more noble for man to be believe in a idea of Ordered Reality as it better reflects a functioning legal, social and economic system, especially a democratic society. I think believing in an all-powerful God who is the definition or Good or Right is a world-view more consistent with those livimng in a tyrannical or chaotic society.

[Paracelsus]

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

I'm sure you know what I mean by the term 'exists'.

No, actually, I don't. I lack any sixth sense or ESP. That's why I asked for your definition of it: so we have a clear basis for debate.

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

For the sake of the argument I would say something exists if it is represented somewhere in the Physical world i.e reality or existence.

Now we need to define "represented" and "physical world". Get back to me on that, and we'll be able to take that point further. In particular please consider the concept of ghosts or apparitions in connection with these definitions, and also memories while we're at it. Meanwhile...

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Order is present when a set of Laws are applied uniformly ( whether we have discovered those laws or not).

This is bootstrap levitation. Asserting that a law must exist even when we have not discovered it allows you to a priori assert order to exist in a given case even when you have no basis upon which to say it is there: "All these random numbers have a principle explaining them, but I don't know what the principle is". The theological equivalent of this assertion is the God of the Gaps fallacy: that a deity is handling all those interactions which science does not yet explain. It is no more a valid argument in this context either.

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

That we have no Grand Unifying Theory does not mean one does not exist.

See above.

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

It is not a question of why God's existence must conform to our idea of Reality (ie the Physical world or Existence) but of why must we break our Whole, Uniform and Ordered Reality to allow for an existence of such a God. Everything else conforms to and is subjected to Ordered Existence, God seems to be the one thing that breaks this system of Order and Harmony.

This again proceeds from an arbitrary premise: that our universe is a Whole, Uniform, and Ordered Reality. Also see above.

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Respectfuly this is not correct and is likely a viewpoint a result of a Judeo-Christian (incomplete) version of the history of religious ideas. Early Pagan religions did not see (any) god to be standing above the Laws of Existence. Also, the abrahamix relgions get most of their ideas from Zoroastrianism ( maybe not worth debating here) which is a religion only one-step removed from pure pagan vedic religion. So, Abrahamic monotheism can be seen as a development out of IE paganism, refuting your claim that it has the original conception of 'God'.

You need to re-read what I said. I did not say Abrahamic monotheism had the original conception of God, only that a God part and parcel of and subject to the physical phenomenon of the universe -- as you appear to be asserting -- is not the sole model of God that has come and gone across the millennia of man's history. You are attacking a straw man.

Quote:

I believe its more noble for man to be believe in a idea of Ordered Reality as it better reflects a functioning legal, social and economic system, especially a democratic society.

Why should human affairs be in any way a reflection of the physical phenomenon of the universe? Do the protons get to vote whether to split?

Quote:

I think believing in an all-powerful God who is the definition or Good or Right is a world-view more consistent with those livimng in a tyrannical or chaotic society.

See above: why should human affairs reflect the physical phenomenon of the universe?

And while you're at it, I'd appreciate it if you could provide your response to the following queries I put forward earlier:

Quote:

Upon what rationale 'must' God be subject to some laws, and if so, why should those laws be perceptible or comprehensible to us?

[Phoenix]

(03-27-2016 12:17 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 06:24 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

No, I believe that debating the existence of someone else's deities, and debating the truth of the tales of their mythical characters they tell, is childish (in a literal 'assuming the role of the child' way). Debating the nature of religion is not. These are two different things.

I think people arguing the existence of an omnipotent creator/idea/force with bits of discussion on the roots of Christianity. We're not imposing morals here or saying X religion is right.

Why do you feel this discussion(not one talking about the morals of religion as you've assumed) is wrong?

I'm trying to approach the religion question from a 'zoomed out' perspective. 'Do you believe in god' is not the foundation question, the foundation question is 'in what ways do humans control each other with words'. As I have said before, religion has a biological origin, not the other way around. There is one species with many religions, not one religion with many species.

The whole purpose of establishing deities is that they are subjective. The gods that are talked about will never present themselves to confirm or deny the interpretations of the priests. That is by sociological design. An objective god could be challenged with a non sociological input (e.g. someone else makes a differing observation of that gods will via his own telescope or other instrument). That would defeat the purpose. The purpose is to gain dominance over morality, by elevating the most socially savvy to an unchallengable position via a competitive cognitive and knowledge-intensive process of winning subjective debates.

To be clear, I do not think this is 'wrong' per se. Indeed, people like me are interesting cases in that whilst I am completely atheist, my morals are pretty much the same as the Christians here, for instance. I would not be too upset if I had children that were being indoctrinated with Christian morals. But the purpose of religion is to impose morals, in a socially hierarchical manner. That is the primary reason it exists, as too is simpler morality imposing devices like Santa Claus. So to the extent that you submit yourself to it, you are not in control of your own fate. You are delegating your conscience to a priest. That is fine for the majority of people, who the current era clearly indicates have little concept of right or wrong, but it isn't good enough for me on agency and self-dependence grounds.

So I merely claim the following: 'do you believe in god?' is not a real question, but a request to establish social/moral and dominance/submission hierarchy in the human species.

(03-26-2016 10:58 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

It appears "Pride Male" as he's called didn't take the hint last time I said it. I think the forum members on this thread are putting out excellent arguments with few exceptions, yet he continues to shitpost videos/small quips.

After he trolled the Belgium bombing thread with a 'Christians vs Muslims' snark video, I'm fucking disgusted frankly. I don't know why that particular shitpost made me so angry, but it really was such a smug shitty thing to do. Arrogant snark artists have no place here, they can go join the SJWs.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(03-27-2016 10:14 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 12:17 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 06:24 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

No, I believe that debating the existence of someone else's deities, and debating the truth of the tales of their mythical characters they tell, is childish (in a literal 'assuming the role of the child' way). Debating the nature of religion is not. These are two different things.

I think people arguing the existence of an omnipotent creator/idea/force with bits of discussion on the roots of Christianity. We're not imposing morals here or saying X religion is right.

Why do you feel this discussion(not one talking about the morals of religion as you've assumed) is wrong?

I'm trying to approach the religion question from a 'zoomed out' perspective. 'Do you believe in god' is not the foundation question, the foundation question is 'in what ways do humans control each other with words'. As I have said before, religion has a biological origin, not the other way around. There is one species with many religions, not one religion with many species.

The whole purpose of establishing deities is that they are subjective. The gods that are talked about will never present themselves to confirm or deny the interpretations of the priests. That is by sociological design. An objective god could be challenged with a non sociological input (e.g. someone else makes a differing observation of that gods will via his own telescope or other instrument). That would defeat the purpose. The purpose is to gain dominance over morality, by elevating the most socially savvy to an unchallengable position via a competitive cognitive and knowledge-intensive process of winning subjective debates.

To be clear, I do not think this is 'wrong' per se. Indeed, people like me are interesting cases in that whilst I am completely atheist, my morals are pretty much the same as the Christians here, for instance. I would not be too upset if I had children that were being indoctrinated with Christian morals. But the purpose of religion is to impose morals, in a socially hierarchical manner. That is the primary reason it exists, as too is simpler morality imposing devices like Santa Claus. So to the extent that you submit yourself to it, you are not in control of your own fate. You are delegating your conscience to a priest. That is fine for the majority of people, who the current era clearly indicates have little concept of right or wrong, but it isn't good enough for me on agency and self-dependence grounds.

So I merely claim the following: 'do you believe in god?' is not a real question, but a request to establish social/moral and dominance/submission hierarchy in the human species.

Fair enough, but I'm personally not a fan of organized religion myself or am personally too sure of what comes after death. I personally set my own moral code and argue my morals on a rational basis more so than a religious one.

I separate the argument not so much in that there are morals to believe in, but that there was simply a higher order being of unknown origin that created what we would call existence. I'd liken it humans to a cooked dish.

A dish cannot rationalize, therefore it cannot comprehend what the concept of a human is let alone concepts at all or what it's like to be alive, but it was in a way "created" by man.

In that same way I believe in a God beyond our cognitive abilities. Which is a fairly subjective point to take considering my own bias comes from the fact that I feel certain events in my life perhaps were effected by a higher power of sorts.

It is what it is.

[Phoenix]

(03-27-2016 10:46 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

In that same way I believe in a God beyond our cognitive abilities.

Or perhaps you merely recognize the limit to your cognitive abilities, and create a placeholder concept at that boundary called 'my belief in god'. As will a large group of men. Debate then happens at that inflection point, but not in any way that could uncover new understanding. As the old saying goes, "where science ends, religion begins".

Personally, I just don't ask origin of the universe questions. I'll listen to news from physicists or astronomers that uncover more information on that question, but only as a passing interest. I recognize my role. I'm a human, I am one link in a long chain of other iterations of humans, and my role is to make the strongest and most numerous subsequent links I can. Everything else is superfluous and I don't need to worry about. Some men consider that troubling, that their lives really are that trivial in the grand scheme of things, and that no higher or grander meaning is available. But for me, it is simply true, and thus contains all the meaning I need.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(03-27-2016 11:00 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 10:46 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

In that same way I believe in a God beyond our cognitive abilities.

Or perhaps you merely recognize the limit to your cognitive abilities, and create a placeholder concept at that boundary called 'my belief in god'.

Bingo this is correct. It's a placeholder for me. My belief in God so to speak is as a representative of the unknown. An idea, a thing, a force, and/or a being. I do not know I simply leave it at that. I'd like to believe he's the origin point of it all if he's such a thing beyond my comprehension.

The "man in the sky" idea of God is redundant.

On your second point. Fair enough. Discussing how to view the world is subjective, and I'm merely a human just like you so who am I to judge how you view the world or place judgement on you for it?

[Atheistani]

Paracelsus Wrote:

Now we need to define "represented" and "physical world". Get back to me on that, and we'll be able to take that point further. In particular please consider the concept of ghosts or apparitions in connection with these definitions, and also memories while we're at it. Meanwhile...

Trying to win this debate by getting me to laboriously define every word (and give up) doesnt look like good form. But anyway
Physical World " everything that is perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
Lets just say for something to exist it must be part of the Physical World as defined above.

Memories are not relevant to thia discussion, in any case they exist as a combination of neuro chemicals and connections in the brain. Ghosts and apparitions dont exist as far as I know so....

I suppose I can play this game too...pls can you define 'God' so we are both on the same page. I mean WHAT IS HE/IT not WHAT DOES HE DO/HAS DONE.

Quote:

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Order is present when a set of Laws are applied uniformly ( whether we have discovered those laws or not).

This is bootstrap levitation. Asserting that a law must exist even when we have not discovered it allows you to a priori assert order to exist in a given case even when you have no basis upon which to say it is there: "All these random numbers have a principle explaining them, but I don't know what the principle is". The theological equivalent of this assertion is the God of the Gaps fallacy: that a deity is handling all those interactions which science does not yet explain. It is no more a valid argument in this context either.

Your response seems somewhat off tangent to my quoted texts which simply defines order and is close to a dictionary definition :

"The arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method"

If I understand you correctly, you take objection to my view that all things that physically exist are governed by uniform laws. Well, the fact is we simpy havent found any evidence of anything that has broken the laws of physics.

To be honest I dont really understand your argument here.

Quote:

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

That we have no Grand Unifying Theory does not mean one does not exist.

See above.

I dont quite understand your point. Pls clarify. We know much about the universe and we have yet to find any existence that is not ordered ( i.e does not follow the laws of physics). Ironically it is you using the Gaps Fallacy to argue for an "unordered" existence. None has yet been proven.

Quote:

(03-27-2016 09:26 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  

It is not a question of why God's existence must conform to our idea of Reality (ie the Physical world or Existence) but of why must we break our Whole, Uniform and Ordered Reality to allow for an existence of such a God. Everything else conforms to and is subjected to Ordered Existence, God seems to be the one thing that breaks this system of Order and Harmony.

This again proceeds from an arbitrary premise: that our universe is a Whole, Uniform, and Ordered Reality. Also see above.

But it is as far as we know. There are no verified counter-examples.

Quote:

Quote:

I believe its more noble for man to be believe in a idea of Ordered Reality as it better reflects a functioning legal, social and economic system, especially a democratic society.

Why should human affairs be in any way a reflection of the physical phenomenon of the universe? Do the protons get to vote whether to split?

Human societies reflect their peoples world-view. If a people believe it is ok to be controlled by and obey a being just because he is all powerfil then they are unlikely to stand up to evil tyrants, be logical etc. If a peoples believe the universe is governed by uniform laws then they can more easily understand laws, systems, cause and effect etc. They will value things natural and logical instead of dictated, arbitrary and unmethodical . (Look at the shithole that has become Pakistan, look at what Europe did to Galileo)

Quote:

Quote:

Upon what rationale 'must' God be subject to some laws, and if so, why should those laws be perceptible or comprehensible to us?

One reason, our universe is one of uniform laws, if god wishes to partake in it he must also follow those laws. Otherwise he might find himself with unintended consequences.

More generally, if we assume ÀLL existence must follow laws (we have yet to find a counter to this) then so should God. Whether they are perceptible to us is not relevant

(03-25-2016 03:57 AM)Sooth Wrote:  

The Christian God is believed to be above everything. Infinite and eternal in perfection, holiness, unchanging in character etc.

Pls define "perfect" and "holiness"