the mind of a god

[KingsGambit]

I'm an atheist and I believe in reincarnation, even reincarnating on other planets as alien beings. I surely don't see my belief in no gods as hopeless. I also don't see it as irration, nore do I see any infinite regression.

What do you believe drives the reincarnation process?

[Griggsy]

So, people like William Murray lead dissolute lives, but that has nothing to do with atheism,just their own life styles. Lo: many theists also lead dissolute lives,even born-agains, and remember that Christianity doesn't really promise the easy way as genuine religionists maintain-just that salvation as that sophist C.S.Lewis so notes in " Mere Christianity," mere assertions.
We naturalists deny all woo,including reincarnation and the future state period and the paranormal.
Yes, we atheists do differ in our "denominations!"
Hopeless, why, that's the irrational attitude of the hopeless! We humanists are hardly in that camp as we follow implicitly Paul Kurtz's be exuberant attitude.
Hopelessness, that's Billy Lane's supercilious whine about life without God! How arrogant of Billy to speak for humanity!
Yes, the arguments from happiness-purpose and from angst betray theism as needing maudlin support instead of evidence to make its case for its woo!
My signature as Inquiring Lynn reflects the truth!
Induction and so forth hardly need evidence as they lead to evidence. How the supercilious so misunderstand logic and logical fallacies. I'll ignore inane comments henceforth.

[SatanTheAlien]

Kingsgambit, I believe a natural law in the universe drives reincarnation, in the same way rules drive gravity, etc.

Griggsy, I disagree. I am also a naturalist, yet I believe in reincarnation. I don't believe reincarnation is supernatural or anything like that. It is as a natural process and birth, gravity, and quantum weirdness. The universe just happens to work in such a way that it produces a form of life that retains information, memories, etc, such a form that interfaces with bodies and itself also evolves. It starts out with the intelligence of something like a rat, and each life it retains information and evolves, until it reaches a human consciousness state and beyond.

[Griggsy]

We certainly disagree about a naturalist believing such as naturalists by definition cannot affirm the paranormal, the future state and such. I see that you indeed do desire to put reincarnation legitimately as part of naturalism , but to do so requires evidence as the Flew-Lamberth's presumption of naturalism notes. See the thread here.
CharlesDucasse tried to affirm the future state by using parapsyhology, but that utterly fails.
William McTaggart Ellis McTaggart tried to affirm it using his metaphysics but science rules against that.
And scientistic is a straw man for us naturalists as we don't claim science as the only means to knowledge but instead rational methods. Also Google nauralism to see no to the future state period. Naturalism.org has much to say about naturalism. I laud Thomas Clark,its chief, for it.
And please post at any of my threads! None have to agree with me! And also @ any of my around two hundred blogs!
http: fathergriggs.wordpress.com
http://ignosticmorgansblog.wordpress.com

[SatanTheAlien]

Griggsy, one only needs to believe that the laws of nature govern the universe and that no other laws exist, and that nothing outside the natural universe exist, which I do believe in. I don't have to prove the laws that I believe to exist in this natural universe to be a naturalist. I just happen to believe in a law you reject.

[Griggsy]

SatantheAlien, that's fine! We're speaking the same language unlike those who speak at some other threads here!
We could discuss the matter @griggsthenaturalist.wordpress.com
For the record, my friend, is my style too elementary!
And you might also post at any of my other blogs by Googling lamberth's naturalist arguments about God, and should you choose, you might become a co-administrator.
I look forward to your posts here. I appreciate your agreement,where you do agree with me, and where not,so what?

[Griggsy]

[I] Theists must give the evidence that a disembodied mind is factual instead of relying on the argument from ignorance1 They must overcome McCormick's argument that He cannot think. They must overcome the Lamberth argument from inherency that chaos,order, etc, do inhere in the Cosmos.They must overcome the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism that natural phenomena require supernaturalism to work. At arguments about God , I detail these arguments. Here I query the mind of God as being meaningul.[ Anontheist, Satan the Alien and others naturalists might add to this./I]

[seer]

They must overcome the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism that natural phenomena require supernaturalism to work.

The problem here Griggsy is that you scatter shot to many subjects at once, so let's focus on one subject and discuss that - OK? First, I'm not sure what all the presumption of naturalism entails. I mean if something goes bump in the night I don't assume a poltergeist, I assume one of the dogs knocked something over. So I would like you to expand. And as I noted before Flew no longer assumed a natural source for the creation of the universe - he became a deist.

Flew:

Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before. And it was from Aristotle that Aquinas drew the materials for producing his five ways of, hopefully, proving the existence of his God. Aquinas took them, reasonably enough, to prove, if they proved anything, the existence of the God of the Christian revelation. But Aristotle himself never produced a definition of the word “God,” which is a curious fact. But this concept still led to the basic outline of the five ways.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

[Griggsy]

[I][/IT]heists just presume that God can fathom people praying in thousands of languages and dialects as He has omni-qualites without gving any but intuitions . I find that per Lamberth's the argument from scientific incredulity that to " hear " all simultaneiously would be too much cacophony.What is the evidence for a mind that can do that?
But above all the argument from physical mind and McCormick's why God cannot act trump the idea of a disembodied man in the first place. What evidence supports such/ None, only the argument from ignorance!
Presuming should presume evidence.

[SatanTheAlien]

Hm... In my opinion, defining God as "disembodied" is a bit off the mark. I think most of us assume that God operates within a substrate of some type or another. "Spirit" is just a placeholder for a magnficiently complex mechanism we know very little about as of yet~ mayhaps God is a type of eternally emerging energy source capable of processing every logically possible event and thought? I personally think that an infinite God would be something very akin to that.

I like the concept, but I find a big problem with "eternally emerging energy source." How can something be eternally emerging? That is, if it is constantly being added to, outside time, why hasn't it reached the max limit, infinite? I will use an example I once asked a Buddhist. It went something like this.

Me: What is the ultimate goal of reincarnation?
Her: To get back to nirvana.
Me: How long have we been trying to get back to nirvana?
Her: Forever.
Me: If we have been trying to get back there forever, why haven't we got there yet? If infinte time isn't enough for us to reach this goal, what makes you think more time will get us there?
Her: Hmm, I don't knwo the answer to that.
Me: Perhaps it is a never ending cycle? We get there, then nirvana goes choatic and explodes, then starts over again, with forgetful fragments that try to remember, and reach a unity once again.
Her: Interesting idea. I will have to think about this.

She never got back to me, and she was my neighbor for a year.

If God is a timeless outgrowth of energy then the maximum copacity of energy would be met, infinite, and thus could not ever have been emerging.

[Griggsy]

Still, how could God listen and fathom all those prayers and hosannas in thousands of languages and dialects? To state why, He's Omni- attributed, so of course He can! No, we have no evidence that He even has a disembodied mind, much less one that can do all that!
Matt McCormick discusses why He cannot act and think were He omnipresent.
Give evidence instead of it must be and it may be!
That gives away why theists never can instantiate Him? They ultimately rely on the arguments from personal incredulity, which mocks our conservation of knowledge, and from ignorance, which underlie other theistic arguments.
No argument can tie all His referents as Creator, Designer and so forth together. And as we naturalists peel off referents, he ends up with none, and so cannot exist. We hardly then have that certitude called faith as Alister Earl McGrath finds faith to make.

[magellan004]

[I][/IT]heists just presume that God can fathom people praying in thousands of languages and dialects as He has omni-qualites without gving any but intuitions . I find that per Lamberth's the argument from scientific incredulity that to " hear " all simultaneiously would be too much cacophony.What is the evidence for a mind that can do that?

We do that.
- with light, movement and sound. The space you are in is solid with light, noise and objects moving around yet you can make sense of it and concentrate on what you want to. You can see single objects, hear sound from one source and you can move.