the mind of a god

[cbro]

Naturalists do not believe there is no causation, they believe that the causation was and is natural. The belief that everything has always existed is simply the belief that existence is infinite whether divine or natural. Other than a hypothetical Big Bang we have no evidence of a beginning or ending of anything in space or time. Our Universe may be just one of many in space and time within the vasteness of an infinite matrix.

I guess that any Scientist that would disagree with you shows how poor a Scientist he is and so should be ignored.

[shunyadragon]

I guess that any Scientist that would disagree with you shows how poor a Scientist he is and so should be ignored.

Not a good answer. Scientist do indeed disagree, and this does not detract for their credibility as scientists. Most scientist agree that the universe is most likely finite with a beginning and an end, but beyond that there are only hints of evidence and theory that represents evidence as to what is beyond this.

Naturalists do indeed hold to the belief that the causation for the existence of the universe is natural, but not all scientists are naturalists, many are theists like myself, and there is indeed a divine cause for existence.

[cbro]

Not a good answer. Scientist do indeed disagree, and this does not detract for their credibility as scientists. Most scientist agree that the universe is most likely finite with a beginning and an end, but beyond that there are only hints of evidence and theory that represents evidence as to what is beyond this.

Naturalists do indeed hold to the belief that the causation for the existence of the universe is natural, but not all scientists are naturalists, many are theists like myself, and there is indeed a divine cause for existence.

Do we agree that for the causation to be natural, the material of it, could not have had a beginning and could not be going toward what Scientists call a "heat death" where there is no movement of energy. So that we can see the mind of God in our existence because we can be sure that out of nothing, nothing can come.

[shunyadragon]

Do we agree that for the causation to be natural, the material of it, could not have had a beginning and could not be going toward what Scientists call a "heat death" where there is no movement of energy. So that we can see the mind of God in our existence because we can be sure that out of nothing, nothing can come.

Scientists can only consider the beginning and end of our own universe at the present. I am not sure what your referring to by 'heat death', unless your bringing the concept on entropy into the picture. The present concept of entropy would only apply to a closed system in our present limited concept of the laws of physics, and would only vaguely apply to our universe if it were found to be a closed system. The IM (infinite matrix) concept would be an open system that is infinite in both space and energy/matter. The laws of causation in the IM would determine the birth, formation and death of universes. Our laws of nature, such as the laws of physics would be at best only a limited concept from the human perspective of what the greater natural laws would be that govern the IM.

[cbro]

Scientists can only consider the beginning and end of our own universe at the present. I am not sure what your referring to by 'heat death', unless your bringing the concept on entropy into the picture. The present concept of entropy would only apply to a closed system in our present limited concept of the laws of physics, and would only vaguely apply to our universe if it were found to be a closed system. The IM (infinite matrix) concept would be an open system that is infinite in both space and energy/matter. The laws of causation in the IM would determine the birth, formation and death of universes. Our laws of nature, such as the laws of physics would be at best only a limited concept from the human perspective of what the greater natural laws would be that govern the IM.

The IM sounds like an unbelieving description of the mind of God. Which shows its flaws in such as in our not being able to have an infinite number, space, energy,ect. Which shows the problem from another thread of how God can have any contact with our finite, temporal, existance. Which, I believe is a mystery like the trinity. Which, I believe we can't understand until are taken to the eternal state Jesus promised to give us.

[shunyadragon]

The IM sounds like an unbelieving description of the mind of God. Which shows its flaws in such as in our not being able to have an infinite number, space, energy,ect. Which shows the problem from another thread of how God can have any contact with our finite, temporal, existance. Which, I believe is a mystery like the trinity. Which, I believe we can't understand until are taken to the eternal state Jesus promised to give us.

Nebulous claims that the faithful believers are the only ones who understand does not add much to the debate. It also puts knowledge and salvation into some kind of exclusive ellitist club.

I believe in God. The IM logical argument is simply a logical presentation of that defeats weak theistic arguments. Yes, infinites do exist logically in this argument as in science and math.

[cbro]

Nebulous claims that the faithful believers are the only ones who understand does not add much to the debate. It also puts knowledge and salvation into some kind of exclusive ellitist club.

I believe in God. The IM logical argument is simply a logical presentation of that defeats weak theistic arguments. Yes, infinites do exist logically in this argument as in science and math.

There should be no doubt that a person's belief's are being threatened, when their reply goes obviously off topic. Such as in your ignoring my idea of understanding that there are things we can know but not understand. Such as our pets who know us but only understand what we do for them.

Sight is an exclusive club. Which some people act as if it is an ellitist one.
Can you describe the Mind of your God?
Would you explain your next sentence?
How do infinites exist except in theory?

[cbro]

As before I have agreed with you. This is true IF God is viewed as anthropic, but I contend God is not anthropic, God simply IS.

So that only the anthropic see an anthropic god. Also, I agree that sight for others, does not change because one person is blind.

[Griggsy]

So that only the anthropic see an anthropic god. Also, I agree that sight for others, does not change because one person is blind.

It has been a while since I have read my own thread here. I see that it gets many responses and I thank all. Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" makes mention of how a god's mind would have to be so complicated in order to keep up with humanity as I stress here and adds also to operate in the universe. Also , how does one know that God has His attributes and why not be limited as opposed to being unlimited? Keith Parsons maintains:" Occult powers wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way unfathomable purposes just do not seem to be the basis for any sort of a good explanation. Theistic 'explanations' therefore only seem to serve the purpose of hiding our ignorance behind a theological fig leag."Rather than solving any mystery the god notion remains itself mysterious, thus unavailable as a real explantaion . It is just the tautology - God wills what He wills!

[shunyadragon]

There should be no doubt that a person's belief's are being threatened, when their reply goes obviously off topic. Such as in your ignoring my idea of understanding that there are things we can know but not understand. Such as our pets who know us but only understand what we do for them.

Sight is an exclusive club. Which some people act as if it is an ellitist one.
Can you describe the Mind of your God?
Would you explain your next sentence?
How do infinites exist except in theory?

My reply was not off topic your previous post went over the edge when you brought in the trinity and side shunt of the ellitist view that only believers truely understand. We are not discussing the difference between the blind and the sighted, because the blind are clearly able to understand our world and god within the limits of human understanding as well as the sighted can through alternate senses and intellect.

The infinites in science and math are very real and used every day in application in math and physics in understanding the phyiscial nature of existence. It is a cop out to to use the theory ruse. God may be considered only a theory in this context, and theory that cannot be tested by math or science.

Can I describe the mind of God? The limitations of the human worldview could hardly describe God that is the creator of existence. Mind? That is still a very limited anthropomorphic view of the infinite nature of God.

[cbro]

QUOTE=shunyadragon
My reply was not off topic your previous post went over the edge when you brought in the trinity and side shunt of the ellitist view that only believers truely understand. We are not discussing the difference between the blind and the sighted, because the blind are clearly able to understand our world and god within the limits of human understanding as well as the sighted can through alternate senses and intellect.

quote=cbro
So you are going to insist that understanding of physical sight by people born blind does not have to be different then that of the sighted? Are you also instisting that physical blindness is the only kind possible?

QUOTE=shunyadragon
The infinites in science and math are very real and used every day in application in math and physics in understanding the phyiscial nature of existence. It is a cop out to to use the theory ruse. God may be considered only a theory in this context, and theory that cannot be tested by math or science.

QUOTE=cbro
It is true that we can have a theory idea of God, but I was only saying that your infinites of science and math were theory, not the infinity of God. To me you idea of needing to "test" God by science or math is a off topic cop-out.

QUOTE=shunyadragon
Can I describe the mind of God? The limitations of the human worldview could hardly describe God that is the creator of existence. Mind? That is still a very limited anthropomorphic view of the infinite nature of God.

QUOTE=cbro
You show another obvious cop-out to anyone not threaten by my ideas, because I did not ask for a perfectly full description of God, just what understanding do you have, of that which you call God.

[cbro]

It has been a while since I have read my own thread here. I see that it gets many responses and I thank all. Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" makes mention of how a god's mind would have to be so complicated in order to keep up with humanity as I stress here and adds also to operate in the universe. Also , how does one know that God has His attributes and why not be limited as opposed to being unlimited? Keith Parsons maintains:" Occult powers wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way unfathomable purposes just do not seem to be the basis for any sort of a good explanation. Theistic 'explanations' therefore only seem to serve the purpose of hiding our ignorance behind a theological fig leag."Rather than solving any mystery the god notion remains itself mysterious, thus unavailable as a real explantaion . It is just the tautology - God wills what He wills!

If we can't know what is true, than my sig could be as good as anyone else's opinion.

[shunyadragon]

If we can't know what is true, than my sig could be as good as anyone else's opinion.

That is reality as it is. Your sig is indeed as good as anyone elses given the broader view of the vaste variety beliefs and opinions of all the people in the thousands of years of human history.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=cbro]QUOTE=shunyadragon
My reply was not off topic your previous post went over the edge when you brought in the trinity and side shunt of the ellitist view that only believers truely understand. We are not discussing the difference between the blind and the sighted, because the blind are clearly able to understand our world and god within the limits of human understanding as well as the sighted can through alternate senses and intellect.

So you are going to insist that understanding of physical sight by people born blind does not have to be different then that of the sighted? Are you also instisting that physical blindness is the only kind possible?

No, I do not insist that physical blindness is the only blindness possible, but my point is that your egocentric belief that only an exclusive club of believers are the only ones with the ability to understand and you also believe the rest of the world is in some way spiritually blind shares the common fallisy with many others who make arrogant exclusive claims of truth of quite a variety of points of view and religious beliefs.


QUOTE=shunyadragon
The infinites in science and math are very real and used every day in application in math and physics in understanding the phyiscial nature of existence. It is a cop out to to use the theory ruse. God may be considered only a theory in this context, and theory that cannot be tested by math or science.

It is true that we can have a theory idea of God, but I was only saying that your infinites of science and math were theory, not the infinity of God. To me you idea of needing to "test" God by science or math is a off topic cop-out.

QUOTE=shunyadragon
Can I describe the mind of God? The limitations of the human worldview could hardly describe God that is the creator of existence. Mind? That is still a very limited anthropomorphic view of the infinite nature of God.

You show another obvious cop-out to anyone not threaten by my ideas, because I did not ask for a perfectly full description of God, just what understanding do you have, of that which you call God.

My belief in God is that what we call God is the source of existence, and cannot be defined by any single belief, religion, faith, or world view. The nature of existence itself is a better reflection than any individual worldview, because in its grand majesty it lacks the bias of individual human beliefs. This is not a copout. It simply rejects the ancient individual worldviews of an anthropomorphic God.

[Griggsy]

I am glad that Richard Dawkins argues about the mind of God ! Some cannot fathom that He would have to have a very complex mind to work in the cosmos .This is indeed serious . It is part of the questioning of the attributes of God. See the ignotis and Occam arguments .