Ontological Arguments (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 01:47 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Here is the challenge to the theists:
> > 
> > Any valid theistic foundation of the universe must account for how something that is claimed to be "unknowable" in the physical world can change and/or alter the physical world. This question can be alternately phrased as "How does the physical universe come into existence by means of mind?"[EDITE
> > D]
> > If God interfaces with the physical world at all then there will be a way to detect it. 
> 
> 
> No there won't. Can you scientifically study your love for your wife (?), and don't tell me MRI with radioactive substances, several times removed. The same thing applies to Wagner, Mozart, Brahms, Bach, etc. The emotions in consciousness are beyond study directly, but they are as real as the brick from Romansh. The point of the book, 'A Concealed God', by Stephan Einhorn, 1998, is there are only two, not mutually exclusive answers: "Either God is a biochemical process in the human brain, the function of which is to protect the intellect from experiencing the world as insecure and meaningless---fellings that could have resulted in the downfall of the human race in an evolutionary perspective---or else there is a God.'
> -You are comparing an emotion I experience to the creation of matter; these are clearly two entirely different things. One is an emotion experienced by a human being, the other is... still an emotion? An experience? That bears some kind of explanation as well. I can't fathom it. You're the theist here, have a crack!-> Godel's theorum: we can never prove everything. Much as you believe in the infallable ability of science to study everything, it can't, anymore than we can see outside this universe.-I will repeat again; just as surely as consciousness cannot be fully explained by matter neither does theism explain the creation of matter. I should chastise you here: where did I say what you said I did? You are rapid to judge today.-What I have a problem with is your implicit assertion that matter can be created by nonmatter. Ultimately this is on you to explain if you choose to go the route of theism. It's an unavoidable question unless you decouple God from the physical universe. The only solution that makes any sense in that scenario IS extreme deism. -Basically David, you don't get to pick and choose; if you choose to say God created the universe, you need to legitimately address the core issues it raises. This being one of them. You don't get to just say "I don't know" without trying! At least we can credit Materialists for trying to answer within their means? Have we reached your limit? Are we beyond your creative will? Here at this site I've attempted to fathom a UI; I've contemplated various other oddball things pertaining to God and reality... lets probe a little deeper here!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"