sure but that begs the question of where did this God come from.

Logic comes from us, human beings. To do logic is to perform a human activity, although crows are capable of primitive logic acts. To me it’s just an activity of sentient beings. It didn’t come from anywhere but us.

I’d say information exists as energy fundamentally. Any patterns of information could be transcribed on energy based systems. Since matter is energy then it could be said that information is also physical.

If the answer is God, then it would lead to another question which is who or what created God. Since one of the definitions of god is the uncreated then that question answers itself. So in my opinion the Big Bang was created by god.

Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough responses they’ve definitely helped my understanding of the subject I was aiming to tackle in my post better and apologies for lack of replies I’ve been rather busy this weekend.

In regards to my question whether we could function without consciousness it seems to have been answered. Take fish for example, there’s probably disagreement whether as to the level of consciousness they possess yet demonstrably in nature they’re able to function i.e. eat and reproduce without issue.

As @Patterner pointed out we don’t know exactly what it’s like to be a fish or any other creature apart from ourselves in terms of the cognitive states they experience but can only infer from observation at least that they posses some degree of consciousness. I’d go as far as to say that even us humans can function without consciousness sometimes when performing certain tasks that require no thoughts such as walking breathing etc. this was hinted at by @Athenain their previous post.

What are thoughts, really? Often a response or handling of emotions or physical stimuli, especially things, situations, and circumstances that affect one's biological needs and personal desires. You feel hungry, "I'm hungry, I want a pizza". You're on a budget and your cell phone bill is due in a few days, "I really shouldn't order a large pizza, so maybe I'll just get a hotdog and some chips." You're single and the counter lady is attractive, "I'm going to ask her if she's single." She replies in the negative and it annoys you, "Dang it, every time!" So on and so forth. It's like, one's personal narrative or movie commentary going on every waking moment. Perhaps not the best example... others are welcome to provide a more accurate one — Outlander

Thoughts are cognitive processes often occurring linearly due to the demands of ones environment, physiology, desires and can be concrete or abstract like imagination. Thoughts can be self generating and not always in response to external demands.

What about it? That's nothing to do with the thread topic and mere equivocation. — 180 Proof

The OP asks what faith is so I provided my example which is faith in oneself. Faith does not necessarily have to have religious connotations as such.

Some theists attempt an equivocation fallacy by equating faith in God with faith in things like air travel. — Tom Storm

Yes they do. Faith that something exists (i.e. god) without any proof is the religious type and not much different to saying I have faith that it will not rain tomorrow. It’s speculative.

The speculation that it will not rain tomorrow has two outcomes either it will or it won’t yet faith had nothing to do with the outcome because the result is natural either way.

To believe in the supernatural without proof and faith alone is to immunise yourself against empirical scrutiny as the believer has no obligation to provide proof as to the deity’s existence (which may or may not exist).

But what does faith have to do with the deity’s existence when it either exists or doesn’t ? Does it merely leverage one’s bet that it does exist ? If so is this not futile ?

What about faith in oneself or faith in one’s ability, this has nothing to do with religious faith, and inspires confidence in outcome.

For example I have faith that I will beat my friend at tennis tomorrow. This faith is grounded on my ability. Perhaps I could substitute the word faith with confidence yet this would merely be linguistic.

Every technological advancement has its advantages and disadvantages. I think this has been the case since the invention of the wheel and the invention of fire. It made life easier and the human propensity for ingenuity and invention is relentless either due to necessity or desire to improve things.

Sure AI can replace a lot of jobs but so did the Industrial Revolution. Take transport for example, the men involved in the horse trade would have been impacted by the invention of the automobile yet the automobile conferred many advantages to the owner of it. The same for AI if it reduces costs in a capitalistic society then it will become widespread. I think the danger of it though is overstated because it opens new career opportunities such as coding in AI etc.

However if we become over reliant or dependent on AI without knowing how it works it could stifle innovation unless of course AI itself is capable of innovation and original thought.

Yet despite the advances in AI I don’t think it can match the human touch when delivering many types of services and jobs like the care sector for example as in doctors nurses or other hospitality catering industries.

Also you have to take into account emergent properties. That is the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Though a cat is made up of carbon it is not identical to it as it now has a function such as life.

I’m finding it hard to grasp what you mean by singularity, the last few paragraphs seem a bit vague or perhaps I’m missing something…can you clarify?

Beauty can be universal or subjective, for example I’d say the Mona Lisa as a painting and work of art elicits an almost universal awe when it comes to appreciating it on the other hand reading a beautiful poem might elicit a different emotion or feeling on different subjects.

The best explanation for laws of nature is law-realism: a law reflects a relation between universals. In simpler terms: they are part of the fabric of material reality.

Where does anything come from, ultimately? Answer: a metaphysically necessary, autonomous brute fact. That's true of any metaphysical foundation of existence, even a God. — Relativist

There are multiple explanations for the origins of the laws of nature and the theistic one is one of many with the others being platonic and naturalist (or scientific).

Sure, God can be subject to the same metaphysical investigation of where it came from as much as the laws of nature themselves yet equating god with the laws of nature vis-a-vis divine simplicity solves this problem.

Why think there is magic in the world, when there's no empirical evidence of it? — Relativist

In a sense the ability for life to emerge from non-organic matter to being fully bipedal, conscious and intelligent is truly remarkable perhaps even magical whether you believe in god or not.

I disagree. The overwhelmingly simpler explanation for order is the existence of laws of nature. Again, you're just treating omniscience as no big deal, when it's an enormously big assumption. — Relativist

And where did these laws of nature come from? Just chance that they happen to be so as to allow life to emerge in the world? I think this is equally implausible as that of an eternal omnipotent, omniscient being which could explain why there are laws of nature in the first place.

Plus: if intelligence requires a designer, then God requires one. — Relativist

A common misconception which would lead to infinite regress of prior causes. God is assumed to have no predecessors before him, he just happens to be so eternally (and having existed infinitely) thus the only issue I see here is one of proof. And as I stated before the fact that the laws of nature allow order, complexity and purpose to arise it points towards these attributes being pre existing before they manifested, and they were pre existing in the form of God.

You made the claim so you have the burden of proof. Believe whatever you fancy, sir – apparently, you don't understand the argument from poor design. or why your "belief" is fallacious as I've pointed out ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

The argument from poor design ignores the fact that evolution is an ongoing process whose sole aim is to enable organisms to adapt to their environment. I believe in evolution and a deity, they’re not mutually exclusive in my world view yet despite some examples of poor design as a result of evolution (e.g various cancers) and types of suboptimal creatures they’re outnumbered by designs that more than meets the environmental requirements required of it.

You might say that if the designer/God is perfect then so should his creation but this is a poor argument because it would exclude diversity and the end product would be one perfect creature, but that already exists in the form of God, and since god is all things he is perfection and imperfection at the same time.

Believe what you like, but accept the fact that there's no rational reason to believe omniscience exists. — Relativist

Well that is the question of this topic, whether God or omniscience exists. And I accept your disbelief in it so we differ there. Indeed there may not be any grounds to believe in God as we cannot truly provide conclusive proof that such a being exists yet here we are existing as intelligent beings and this to me constitutes proof that there are probably other intelligent beings out there even as far as the ultimate being who embodies or is identical to omniscience as per my earlier article on divine simplicity attested to. That such a being has always existed is what is implausible to you.

However because the world, the universe or this reality exhibits order, complexity and purpose it’s not too far fetched to attribute the cause to a designer or omnipotent being.

Sure this order and complexity could have arisen by chance and though plausible it’s equally plausible to attribute it to a higher being. The laws of physics seem to be very finely tuned in order to support life and again it could be that it is by pure fluke and chance but then again it could easily be explained in terms of a higher being who set the conditions for life to emerge rather than not emerge.

Even humans sometimes do not live up to their own moral standards. Because morality sometimes is such a grey area between right and wrong it is hard to program this type of ambiguity into a machine with the expectation that it makes 100% correct moral choices when faced with scenarios where right and wrong are to be distinguished because even as humans we struggle with it.

The biggest issue with creating self aware androids is their capacity to carry out morality in human terms and expectations, because we differ from the outset in terms of our makeup our priorities would differ. Thus the nature of self reflection (if they are imbued with it) would be different for androids as it would be for us and their consideration of what makes a choice morally or ethically correct would differ too. This has to do with empathy towards other lives human or non-human. If empathy could somehow be programmed into androids then they’d be more capable of making better ethical/moral choices, but that is not the question.

The question is whether it is possible to do so i.e. grant androids the same level of empathic self reflection as humans, and if we could do that I so no issue with doing so as an android capable of moral decision making is obviously desirable.

Complex to us, perhaps, yet omniscience is not a property of god but rather it is God as explained by the article I posted in my previous post and here, divine simplicity explains omniscience as per below:

God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity

So the question is: which is more plausible? A being of infinite complexity, with magical knowledge of everything it could do and it's consequences OR a natural state of affairs that evolves due to its internal characteristics? Each is uncaused and exists without deeper explanation. Which is the more parsimonious, and thus better, explanation — Relativist

You’re making an assumption about the nature of god, instead I would argue for divine simplicity instead of complexity.

According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures and cannot be adequately understood in ways appropriate to them. God is simple in that God transcends every form of complexity and composition familiar to the discursive intellect. One consequence is that the simple God lacks parts. This lack is not a deficiency but a positive feature. God is ontologically superior to every partite entity, and his partlessness is an index thereof.

The issue of course is one of proof, and to account for an explanation of how the universe has developed to create and imbue creatures with intelligence one has to ask if this intelligence or consciousness has not always existed in the form of god (of divine simplicity) and life is merely a manifestation of one of its facets.

Feel free to read more on the above quote: https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/divine-simplicity/

I’m not denying evolution or entropy nor how life came to be through such processes but they happen because the laws of nature allow evolution to occur by enabling organisms to adapt to their environment.

The point is none of these interactions that created life could occur if there were not some laws of biochemistry or physics that dictate how particles interact with each other to give rise to abundant complexity. Without these interactions there would no life and it’s precisely these laws of nature which need explanation not just the end result (life) whilst the latter can be explained by pure chance the former would need an explanation of where these laws came from.

It makes sense then to attribute intelligent laws to an intelligent agent or lawmaker hence my argument.

What occurs, including what comes to exist, could very well be the product of chance. We exist as a consequence of the way the world happens to be. If it is actually possible for the world to have differred, other sorts of things might have existed. — Relativist

So you think processes such as cell replication or photosynthesis come to be by pure chance? A designer would have better explanatory power here. Labelling it as evolution does not rule out god because they set the laws that govern and allow evolution to take place. Without a designer matter would just remain stagnant and nothing would have happened or emerged, no life and certainly no intelligence. Again you might say well it’s just biochemistry and matter will interact with other matter or its environment to create different processes given the right environmental conditions but again I ask you why has it produced something useful like a plant alongside the innate rock? There are many factors which need to combine to create even the simplest life and although they could have come to be through chance to me it implies that there are intelligent rules or laws which enables such life to form.

then how do you account for an intelligent creator to produce the design? — Relativist

Existence is eternal therefore it’s possible that such a being could have emerged with capabilities to express his will through his creation as he sees fit. Or another explanation which you might not like is that such a being has always existed and is uncreated.

Whether the design is poor or optimal is irrelevant, the point is to prove that there is (any) design, which would lead to a designer. If there was no design in nature there would just be primordial matter and nothing else but the fact that nature for example is able to invent/evolve such processes as photosynthesis shows intelligence in action and the tell tale signs of on overarching intelligence in action such as that of a God.

When looking at natures inventiveness/evolution at problem solving and coming up with solutions to environmental requirements this exhibits intelligence, no? What is it that is happening then ? Evolution, yes? Of course, yet why are there these types of interactions occurring here in the first place?

How do you/we know this? — 180 Proof

Well do you hold the idea that 10,000 monkeys could write the completed works of Shakespeare through random chance, what logic would you use to support this idea?

My beliefs are based on observation of the natural world which as I’ve stated before shows signs of intelligence, design whatever you wanna call it. This to me constitutes evidence of God.

The non god alternative is that these manifestations of intelligence occurred through dumb luck, which is not possible. It’s like 10,000 monkeys randomly typing on a keyboard and creating the complete works of Shakespeare. Just not possible.

I was just asking…
Uncreated, eternal existence is easier to digest logically than a created one, granted, as the latter would require how’s and why’s etc, where’s the former would not be prone to such questioning.

Indeed the uncreated existence (laws of nature) can be seen as God in some ways in the way that Einstein and Spinoza conceived God for example, but another question that comes to mind is if these laws of nature are eternal could it not yield a god in the way some monotheistic religions describe it as? After all in this type of eternal existence some sort of omnipotence could arise…

I think you give governments more credit than they are due when it comes to their ability to cover their tracks…after all there would be leaks somewhere down the line.

It would be cool if aliens have or had visited us but I just don’t believe it has happened. Plus with everyone having a camera at their fingertips these days we would have evidence for it but we hardly have any credible ones.

Are you saying the "signs of intelligence" in the universe are...us? — Relativist

Not just us but all life forms show intelligent processes in them such as plants through photosynthesis.

The gradual development of intelligent beings, somewhere in an old, vast universe seems much more plausible than an intelligence just happening to exist, uncaused and without a prior history of development. — Relativist

My view of intelligence is that it has always existed and what we observe in nature and us is just it manifesting itself. So it precedes us.

So...the writers of scripture (2K+ years ago) were able to figure this out, but we can't. — Relativist

I don’t believe in scripture too much and much of it was speculation as to the reasons behind creation or motives of the creator.

I assume that would mean that God is not separate from his creation. I guess the question is where did these laws of nature, physics etc come from or who created them if god and existence are equivalent.

In my view the universe displays signs of intelligence through its beings which would imply intrinsic intelligence embedded within it from the start, probably pointing towards a creator God. As to his reasons or motivations for creating, they cannot be inferred without resorting to scriptures.

I think we’re lucky to exist. Sure life is unfair and a struggle at times but we’re lucky enough to experience the good that comes from it. You don’t have to be rich to enjoy it, it’s just a ride and getting off it before it finishes hurts (suicide) so just let life play itself out, don’t put too much pressure on yourself, we’re blessed that we get to exist because when we cease to exist that will be forever and it’s a once only event.

The probability of life emerging elsewhere in the universe where there are trillions of solar systems is greater than 0 so there’s probably life out there too.

The issue is that of technological advancement and capability of traveling to other worlds and overcoming the light speed barrier to do so. In this regard we have no conclusive proof or evidence that this has happened but are left with conspiracy theories that they have in fact visited earth but are covered up by government. The question is why?

One of the reasons it could have been covered up is that we’re a war mongering species so any technological advantage we may develop because of this tech would be best kept under wraps in order to maintain such an advantage.

Personally I do not believe that governments have had any contact or exchange with alien civilisations by the mere fact that had we done so we’d be more enlightened and collaborative as a species instead of a war mongering one.

Also if aliens capable of traversing interstellar distances would most likely come in peace and would want to instantiate or initiate contact with us, and the fact that this hasn’t happened is not due to some conspiracy but rather that they haven’t tried to make contact with us or just hasn’t happened.

I think that is a better version of Christianity, where human beings are able to exist without any repercussions regarding the choices they make in their life and being able to choose whether to acknowledge such a God or not as you say he does not require any covenants.

Your view of God in this respect is similar to mine, but with the added bonus of immortality granted to beings who express his will the best and who are as morally good as it is possible.

However I do not subscribe to the creation myth or garden idea because I cannot infer purpose from god nor any motivation behind his reason for creating this world. It could be that initially god rolled the dice and created the universe where life may emerge due to intrinsic inevitability of the properties of physics, maths and matter such that life’s emergence was inevitable not just on this planet.

This leads to many questions such as his relationship to his creation and creatures within it, as god himself is immortal does is this property also inherited by human beings who wish to attain immortality as well or is it just an exclusive property belonging to god only? If so then we are but the flicker of a candle in the wind compared to god’s eternal existence. If we have no intrinsic purpose to our existence but to enjoy it (and some don’t) then if we die never to be reborn then our creation was meaningless.

Nature encourages diversity and incest does the opposite, not to mention birth defects that could result from it. Even if it was purely for recreation reasons then it would be simply taboo in most western societies because it’s frowned upon for obvious reasons that others have mentioned here.

The intelligence manifested by the universe does not necessarily entail an intelligent designer but it does not rule it out either.

To me it strongly points towards a creator/designer whose attributes are embodied by nature rather than just a disembodied being. This does not mean that this being (God) does not transcend nature itself.

Sure complex systems like biology and life could arise by chance such as they did via evolution yet the chain of events from non-life to life could not have occurred if this matter was inane, strengthening the need for an ever existing intelligence in the universe or God.

Starting off with the simplest chemical reactions to the emergence of complex systems such as plants, trees and even animals which are able to reproduce and self perpetuate. This is too much of a leap no matter what odds it takes for it to occur and happen by chance but rather the signs of a pre-existing eternal intelligence rather than just an emergent phenomena.

As far as I'm concerned, any hypothesis about the origin of life on earth is better than abiogenesis, because abiogenesis is really nothing other than the lack of an hypothesis. It basically says that since we have no idea where life came from, or how life came about, let's just assume that it sprang from nothing (spontaneous generation). See, it's really a lack of hypothesis, more than anything else. The flying spaghetti monster is a better hypothesis, because at least it hypothesizes something — Metaphysician Undercover

You’re misconstruing what abiogenesis is, it is the emergence of life from non-life via natural processes not spontaneous generation. Therefore it remains a valid hypothesis though it may not have all the answers we are looking for.

Thanks for that, it just goes to outline another limitation of language, not its finitude but its inability to map to uncountable infinite elements.

This would be impractical in its application in the real world and would serve no use apart from counting, though the points in a line are infinite naming/identifying each point in a line would be an unnecessary exercise.

There are different types of language such as mathematical or musical which overcome the limits of ordinary language in what they can express.

Non lyrical music is auditory and can evoke certain emotions that ordinary language cannot such as longing or nostalgia or other emotions felt by the subject when hearing it.

That’s because the points on a line are infinite, why can’t there be infinite words ?

You will run out of those. — Tarskian

No you won’t, you can just create new identifiers (words).

Although the wave equation predicts how a system evolves, it does not explain why a specific outcome crystallizes upon measurement. This explanatory gap highlighted the need to incorporate the observer into the framework, marking a significant shift in how science interacts with the humanities. — Wayfarer

But isn’t making making a measurement simply taking a snapshot or picture of how things are at that moment in time ? Where does the observer come into it apart from the interpretation of the result.

If there are more planets than possible words then you can't give each of them a different name. It doesn't matter if you have seen all of them. — Tarskian

No issue, just make up a new word for it. Or letter number designation.

What is language trying to express if not human experience? What else could be the purpose of language? — Dorrian

It can also express ideas from abstract to concrete. The descriptive power of words and language only fails when it overreaches this domain by trying to express emotions and sensations that are produced by the nervous system which is non-linguistic in its communication.