"There is No Creator"

[Lyndon]

Making underage girls parade around naked and grabbing their breast is not child abuse, Oh Brother.

 

[Sunstone]

Making underage girls parade around naked and grabbing their breast is not child abuse, Oh Brother.

Source?

 

[Lyndon]

You don't think you're straining your own credibility with your illogical and largely unsubstantiated attacks on Osho? Quite frankly, Lyndon, you come across as someone who has no adequate response to the substance of Osho's criticism of the creator idea, and consequently has chosen to illogically attack Osho, rather than his idea.

You seem to be grasping at straws to support you atheist views, try someone respectable to quote like the Dalai lama, Osho's a nut job, everyone knows that, Maybe you are unaware of it, He's know as Sri Rajneesh, ran a sex cult deported from the USA

 

[Lyndon]

Source?

The link I quoted above

 

[Sunstone]

The link I quoted above

That's a pretty controversial source. Do you have a credible source?

 

[PureX]

The first 30 seconds of this video convinced me that this guy is a fool. And probably a charlatan, as well.

Here's the basic problem. Existence is the result of order, which is being generated by the inherent limitations in the way energy can and cannot express itself. So that existence, itself, begs the question of the origin of all this 'energy', and of the 'rules' that are limiting it's expression. There is no logical way for us to conceive of it occurring without some sort of agency. And because the result of this agency is ordered, and has become so highly complex, it's very difficult for us to logically presume that this agency is/was unintelligent, and/or purposeless.

The fundamental origin of existence as we experience it may be a profound mystery to us, but the nature of existence, itself, clearly indicates the questions that need to be addressed. And this clown is just completely ignoring them with what sounds to me like bad pseudo-spiritual double-speak.

 

[Sunstone]

You seem to be grasping at straws to support you atheist views, try someone respectable to quote like the Dalai lama, Osho's a nut job, everyone knows that, Maybe you are unaware of it, He's know as Sri Rajneesh, ran a sex cult deported from the USA

Again, your logic is warped. Osho's ideas are logically independent of anything he might or might not have done. You are trying to apply FOX News thinking here. Please stop.

 

[Lyndon]

This Oregon tantric sex cult committed the largest incidence of bioterrorism on U.S. soil

 

[Lyndon]

Again, your logic is warped. Osho's ideas are logically independent of anything he might or might not have done. You are trying to apply FOX News thinking here. Please stop.

What complete BS, You're claiming that a complete lunatic can still be considered an authority on something closely related to his lunacy???????????????

 

[Sunstone]

The first 30 seconds of this video convinced me that this guy is a fool. And probably a charlatan, as well.

Here's the basic problem. Existence is the result of order, which is being generated by the inherent limitations in the way energy can and cannot express itself. So that existence, itself, begs the question of the origin of all this 'energy', and of the limitations within it's expression. There is no logical way for us to conceive of it occurring without some sort of agency. And because the result of this agency is ordered, and has become so highly complex, it's very difficult for us to logically presume that this agency is/was unintelligent, and/or purposeless.

The fundamental origin of existence as we experience it may be a profound mystery to us, but the nature of existence clearly indicates the questions that need to be answered. And this clown is just completely ignoring them with bad pseudo-spiritual double-speak.

I have a great deal of respect for your thinking, PureX, but in this case I believe you're mistaken. First off, your notion that "existence" must have an intelligent and purposeful cause due to the complexity of existence fails to take into account that there can be emergent properties, among other things. Second off, Osho's argument is of limited scope -- he is merely countering the notion that saying "A creator made the universe" can be a final answer to how the universe came into existence. I do appreciate, however, that you have chosen to largely address the real issues in this thread, and not stoop to an ad hominien attack on Osho. I have no particular fondness for Osho, but I have great contempt for illogical arguments.

 

[Sunstone]

What complete BS, You're claiming that a complete lunatic can still be considered an authority on something closely related to his lunacy???????????????

How on earth did you arrive at the notion Osho's opinions about creators are "closely related" to his alleged sexual behavior?

 

[Aupmanyav]

And that would be an example of the ad hominien fallacy.

Osho propagated debauchery. I do not know how far he was capable of it. And he was not a Hindu (he was born a Jain, though what he did was equally reprehensible in Jainism too). Perhaps Wikipedia article on Osho will have better information. I think it was unfortunate that he was allowed to function in India.

As for the OP, you say there is no creator. Can you say that there is a creation or that is only a mirage, an illusion. Atoms thinking about atoms in a way they have learnt.

Your confusing OSHO with a Catholic priest.

Do you think all our Godmen are epitomes of virtue? Catholic priests are not the only ones.

So having sex with children is sufficient grounds for dismissing what they say on other things out of hand.

That saves a messenger.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please discuss.

He didn't make a case for no creator existing. He repeated a well-known argument for why a god isn't known to be necessary to explain existence: If a god can exist uncaused, undesigned and uncreated, then so can that which is said to be the creation of such a god. Thus, "There may be no creator" is a valid conclusion of that argument, but "There is no creator" is not.

I just critiqued an argument made by a man accused of being a pedophile, which was sufficient grounds for one poster to reject his argument. This fact seems to be dominating this thread so far:

OSHO is a chjld molester, that alone stops me from taking anything he says seriously.

Sunstone, whose clear thinking I admire, responded:

And that would be an example of the ad hominien fallacy.

With all due respect, I would like to argue that a derogatory statement about the source of an argument is not any kind of fallacy unless one is using that claim to argue that the source is wrong, that is, to come to an opposite conclusion based on a perceived character defect, a type of genetic fallacy. Genetic fallacies are claims that an argument is wrong because the source is inadequate in some sense. It need not (but can) be an ad hominem fallacy. One can make the same mistake simply by rejecting the source because it is unfamiliar or not adequately vetted, an example of a genetic fallacy that is not also an ad hominem fallacy.

There is an important distinction between saying that one will not accept an argument because of the reputation of its source, and saying that the argument is wrong for that reason. For example, I am simply not interested in anything coming from a creationist apologetics source because I am familiar with their agenda, values, and methods, none of which I trust or support, and which have too often been found to be taking liberties with the truth.

Why is this a legitimate reason to reject all such sources? Because to evaluate an argument from an untrusted source, one must not only fact check all factual claims to see which ones if any have been fabricated or distorted, one must also survey a much larger assortment of trusted resources to get an overview of the topic to see what has been omitted. Why bother?

I recently saw an argument in a creationist apologetics site that man could not have evolved from the quadripedal great apes because they all have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man has only 23. Anybody interested can read this argument at DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution in the section called "One atheist lie after another." The author argued that the dropout of an entire chromosome would have been a lethal mutation, which of course would be true of that were what had actually occurred.

I happened to already know what was missing from that deceptive and dishonest argument: a fusion event that occurred after the line that became man diverged from the one that became chimps and bonobos. What had been two chromosomes became one bigger one.

But had I not known that, how could I evaluate that argument? Looking only at what is included, one would have to agree with it.

After enough experience with these kinds of sources, I have now simply dismissed them all. But notice carefully that I am not making the argument that their conclusions are wrong because of their reputations, but merely that I am not interested in what they have to say because I don't trust that they are being honest, and it's not worth the effort to research the argument in order to adequately evaluate it.

My point is that such an attitude, which has been called an example of the genetic fallacy, is not a fallacy because it is not part of an argument against whatever the creationist is claiming, and logical fallacies are elements of invalid arguments. And for that reason, I have to disagree that Lyndon committed an ad hominem fallacy. He wasn't making a counterargument like I did in my first paragraph above. He was merely telling you that he wasn't interested in the opinions of a reputed pedophile.

What do you think?

 

[savagewind]

His assertion is that if God exists uncreated, then everything else can exist uncreated also.

It is my opinion that The God is not something which was designed. Everything that I am aware of has a design and is duplicated in its design.

Also, things do not have a "will do". [Perhaps] God is WILL. So, God can not be compared to physical things.

 

[PureX]

I have a great deal of respect for your thinking, PureX, but in this case I believe you're mistaken. First off, your notion that "existence" must have an intelligent and purposeful cause due to the complexity of existence fails to take into account that there can be emergent properties, among other things. Second off, Osho's argument is of limited scope -- he is merely countering the notion that saying "A creator made the universe" can be a final answer to how the universe came into existence. I do appreciate, however, that you have chosen to largely address the real issues in this thread, and not stoop to an ad hominien attack on Osho. I have no particular fondness for Osho, but I have great contempt for illogical arguments.

Well, first, I stated no "must haves". The origin of existence as we experience it is a profound mystery to us. A point on which this Osho guy is already being disingenuous. And secondly, "emergent properties" emerge from something. Not from nothing. So emergent properties are not relevant to the question of existential origin. If you can find some instance wherein 'energy' emerges from nothing, you will soon be a very wealthy man, and the hero of a very grateful civilization. Granted, we really have no idea what 'energy' is, or from whence it came, but it is the foundation of existence. So it is the primary existential mystery that we need to be exploring. As to the idea of a creator-god, I simply view it as a way of characterizing the mystery. Not as an 'answer' to it. So for me, this Osho guy is debating a non-issue (as are a great many atheists ).

 

[Thief]

Please discuss.

the old hall of mirror problem in a new face

but Someone's Face had to be First

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here's the basic problem. Existence is the result of order, which is being generated by the inherent limitations in the way energy can and cannot express itself. So that existence, itself, begs the question of the origin of all this 'energy', and of the 'rules' that are limiting it's expression. There is no logical way for us to conceive of it occurring without some sort of agency. And because the result of this agency is ordered, and has become so highly complex, it's very difficult for us to logically presume that this agency is/was unintelligent, and/or purposeless.

A useful contribution from the intelligent design people - possibly the only one - was its implication that complexity alone is not an indication of an intelligent agent.

Behe noted that a biological system that could not be assemble incrementally with each increment conferring a selective advantage had not just complexity, but irreducible complexity. Behe was implying that if the intermediate steps produced adaptations that could be acted upon by natural selection, there was no inherent barrier to blind nature increasing complexity for as long as it increased biological fitness.

Dempski found another form of complexity which he called specified complexity, a concept which is vaguely defined, but which I understand as analogous to writing. It's complexity of a specific nature.

The complexity in a cell is not specified, nor is the cell necessarily irreducibly complex, so it very well may have occurred naturalistically. The notion cannot be ruled out at this time.

Furthermore, there is a logical error in positing an intelligent agent as the source cells because cells seem too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated, when that intelligent designer needs to be orders of magnitude more complex than the cells it was invented to account for. This is what makes the naturalistic explanation not merely not eliminable, but preferable, because it is more parsimonious.

The same argument applies to the origin of the universe itself. It's complexity is not an argument for an intelligent designer, and posting one to account for what a simpler entity, a multiverse, can do is fine, and may be correct, but make the same logical error of invoking a much more complex entity to explain a simpler one.

 

[Thief]

A useful contribution from the intelligent design people - possibly the only one - was its implication that complexity alone is not an indication of an intelligent agent.

and you then can affirm.....no intelligent agent....at all?
that dead substance can beget the living?

 

[PureX]

He didn't make a case for no creator existing. He repeated a well-known argument for why a god isn't known to be necessary to explain existence: If a god can exist uncaused, undesigned and uncreated, then so can that which is said to be the creation of such a god. Thus, "There may be no creator" is a valid conclusion of that argument, but "There is no creator" is not.

Not only that, but whatever the "creator" is (or isn't), it is clearly outside of and beyond the limitations of existence as we know it. And at that point, any logical, existential argument against it, fails. There is no logical reason for us to assume that a "creator" had to be created. So the whole "uncaused, cause" dilemma becomes an irrelevancy. Eternity is as likely a reality beyond the parameters of existence as we know and experience it, as anything else is.

As to the issue of "design", it is clear that existence as we experience it is an expression of "design". What is not clear is if this design is the result of intelligence, and if so, is it purposeful. As to intelligence, I would posit that since it requires intelligence to recognize it's intricate complexity, it should be considered an expression of intelligence as well as design. However, the real issue is one of purpose, and so far I see no evidence to answer that question either way. The implication of purpose is there. But an implication is not sufficient evidence to conclude that there is an existential purpose.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please discuss.

Sorry, Sunstone, but I am not about to lose four minutes of my life listening to Rajneesh.

In any case, the matter of whether there is a creator God is only of significance to the people who are inclined to perceive it as such.

It should be noted that, despite frequent claims to the contrary, there is no logical reason why "creation" should even be a real thing, let alone why a creator God would be an "explanation for existence". Those are just cravings that some people have.