It seems to me that this intelligence which is manifested in nature must be pre-existing and has been expressed through evolution reasons unknown. — kindred

So... you believe nature manifesrs intelligence? If so, please provide your justification for believing that.

There are bigger mysteries too. Something cannot come from nothing which implies that something has always existed ad infinitum in one form or another and whether this something through the aeons of time could produce a God is highly plausible. — kindred

It's trivially true that "something cannot come from nothing", but that does not entail an infinite past.

It's logically impossible for nature to "produce a God" if "God"= a creator.

Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists has no logical explanation and certainly giving rise to complex organisms means we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to explanation. — kindred

We may never figure out how life began. That doesn't justify believing it was not natural abiogenesis.

If God wanted to prove to anyone that he exists he could easily do that but he doesn’t and in this way he remains mysterious to his beings who are free to doubt, deny or affirm his existence. — kindred

This implies that IF there is a God, he probably doesn't give a shit whether we believe in him.

existence itself [is] perhaps a manifestation of his being — kindred

That's logically possible. So is solipsism. Possibility (alone) does not justify belief.

Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists — kindred

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works.

If included in the definition of God is a thing transcending the mundane; and if proof is a thing of the mundane, then you're not going to reach any certainty regarding God by proving it.

Good point. I always thought proving the existence of God was a waste of time because atheists will always deny it and believers will always give God's existence as granted.

Some of us affirm the "god exists" in the heads of it's believers and nowhere else.

True, I agree. It's interesting to imagine that those people ("believers") believe that "God exists" is also a fact in our minds since they can't accept that God exists in some minds but not in others.

Some of us affirm the "god exists" in the heads of it's believers and nowhere else. — 180 Proof

There is nowhere else to "affirm". Where outside of the heads of its believers is anything affirmed?

Where outside of the heads of its believers is anything affirmed? — ENOAH

Again, (as I asked yesterday) is that even doable or possible at all?

No. I don't think it's possible to affirm anything outside of the minds affirming. Does that mean there is no other access to "X"? In other words is "X" only real if a human mind can affirm it? Or, if "X" is real, must it only be accessible as real to the human mind? I hypothesize that the "flaw" in proving God is not necessarily to be focused on God, but rather on the proving, and the idea that our flaws in proving "X" somehow seal the fate of "X".

I hypothesize that the "flaw" in proving God is not necessarily to be focused on God, but rather on the proving, and the idea that our flaws in proving "X" somehow seal the fate of "X". — ENOAH

I agree. Good points and argumentation, ENOAH. :up:

Is theism 'either true or not true'? If yes, then this can be soundly demonstrated. However, if no, then theism is noncognitive (i.e. figurative, analogical, mythopoetic).

NB: I'm using 'theism' in this context to mean 'sine qua non properties attributed to g/G' such as
(1) an/the ultimate mystery
(2) that created the whole of existence
(3) and uniquely intervenes in (re: "providence") – causes changes to (re: "miracles") – the observable universe (i.e. nature).

has no logical explanation — kindred

What is a "logical" explanation? You seem to be making a categorical distinction: how does an explanation differ from a logical explanation? - Assuming that by "explanation" we mean something that makes sense as opposed to something that does not or cannot make sense.

No offense but how can "theism be true? As in ultimately/absolutely, independently of humans. We made it up. I like your definition, I agree with the point you're making, Im just also taking a step back and saying, we can't grasp its truth by thinking about it. I'm not in a position to doubt whatever it is that is [more] real than us. So I don't. If that's just agnostic, so be it. But I'm also saying I'm not in a position to grasp its reality with my little language box. In my readings etc. that there is such a Truth not accessible to us through our minds seems inevitably to come up. I see the inescapable paradox. I think we all do but we yammer on; its what we are. Anyway, that's what draws me (and presumably many) to whatever it is that is [more] real than us. But I recognize that I can't access that with my mind. My mind inevitably makes stuff up (like theism); albeit functional and valuable in our own world. They necessarily can't surpass the gap from their constructedness to whatever that reality is.

That's why I initially said, and still think, you cannot access "God" by any method of proof.

Well, if theism is not true or noncognitive, then "God" conceived of this way is factually disproven (i.e. demonstrably not the case, nonexistent).

If that's the result in logic, I accept. Now how to answer the residual unresolved question? How then is [only so called for a point of mutual focus] God to be conceived of, absolutely? I.e., where we are not left with any risk of elimination by a simple sweep of logic.

What is a "logical" explanation? You seem to be making a categorical distinction: how does an explanation differ from a logical explanation? - Assuming that by "explanation" we mean something that makes sense as opposed to something that does not or cannot make sense. — tim wood

You’re right of course the word logical was not necessary unless invoking a non-logical explanation such as god did it or other supernatural explanation.

How then is [only so called for a point of mutual focus] God to be conceived of, absolutely? — ENOAH

Spinoza's Deus, sive natura is conceptually coherent enough for me (& Einstein).

When you say the universe is inevitable, how do you mean? Do you mean it is non-contingent or metaphysically necessary?

Because that's definitely contentious. I would be hard pressed to find any philosopher who argues the universe is necessary. I would believe atheist philosophers would simply accept its brute contingency. If you want to argue its necessity in some sense, you would be pitched right back into the nature of metaphysical necessity and the contingency argument for God.

IMO, necessity demands ontological non-composition and non-changeability. I don't think we can ascribe those to the universe, since the universe is a set of space-time events with no substantial existence beyond its components.

When you say the universe is inevitable, how do you mean? Do you mean it is non-contingent or metaphysically necessary? — Bodhy

How could there possibly be nothing? Not nothing like the inside of an empty box with all the air removed and shielded against radiation, but nothing nothing. Not even a quantum vacuum. What does that even mean? How can you have nothing without something to compare it with? Is that metaphysics? I'm not sure.

et

I think the only way to get to "nothing nothing" might be using zero. "0" comes from Arabic ṣifr, which means empty. While Greeks never had zero on mind, Arabian mathematicians used zero to represent emptiness, but took it into consideration and in their calculus. Then, zero is countable, although it is empty. So, "nothing nothing" might go beyond something empty. Maybe this would be the place where metaphysics was born...

I think the only way to get to "nothing nothing" might be using zero. — javi2541997

We are not talking about mathematical nothing, at least I'm not. We're talking about actual nothing - no matter, no energy, no fields, no quantum vacuum, no space, no time. Nothing.

How could there possibly be nothing? [ ... ] Not even a quantum vacuum. What does that even mean? — T Clark

:100:

I agree 'the universe is contingent' (i.e. necessarily non-necessary) but the universe – any existent – is only a property of existence (not the other way around) and is not itself existence as such (which is necessarily non-contingent (i.e. existence = not-nonexistence / not-nothingness)).

I know you were not talking about math. I tried to see whether nothing is identifiable or not. As zero can represent emptiness and it can help us to understand facts, I wonder what represents the absence of those elements (no time, no matter, no fields, no energy).
I will be clear: when you think in absolute nothing, what comes to your mind? Everything white? A sparkle? A very deep, dark, and cold ambient?

I will be clear: when you think in absolute nothing, what comes to your mind? Everything white? A sparkle? A very deep, dark, and cold ambient? — javi2541997

You are imagining something. Nothing is the absence of any qualities or attributes. It can't be imagined because by that very act you are imagining something.

Do we have any evidence that there was ever such a thing as nothing? As far as human experince is concerned the term 'nothing' is incoherent unless it is attached to a sentence like 'nothing up my sleeve' :wink:

I agree, and I think this is where we're headed into Christian metaphysics, the realisation that Being in some sense is necessary, there cannot be existential null. This is just the basic thrust of Christian metaphysics - no particular thing is necessary, but "Is" Is necessary, as if Being has no negation.

So, Being isn't a rug which we need to throw over a "nothing" like what Bergson said.

Christian metaphysics — Bodhy

Fyi: I derive 'necessary non-contingency' of existence (i.e. no-things) from the "metaphysics" of classical atomism (re: void) that predates Aristotlean 'substance' by a few centuries, Christianity by several centuries, and Anselm's 'necessary being' by about a millennium and a half.

You are imagining something. Nothing is the absence of any qualities or attributes. It can't be imagined because by that very act you are imagining something. — Tom Storm

I wholeheartedly agree, Tom. Then, when I think of 'nothing' I only can imagine in the letters that form the word: N - O - T - H - I - N - G. What else can come to mind about nothingness? Because we agree with the difference between that and emptiness, right?