"There is No Creator"

[Jeremiahcp]

Please discuss.

Well sorry to break the news but it is a pronoun. Also if you use a modifier as a noun then it is acting as a noun. I mean he was talking about the infinite regression problem, and that is a valid point, not a new one but still a valid point. However, his whole bit about making it a noun was not so great. He identifies a thing and he attaches a label, and that how nouns work. You can use modifiers as nouns, and that was all he was doing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I think that there has to be an uncaused cause - something that has always existed - or an uncaused effect - something which came into existence when nothing else had existed, and had a first moment. The original form of existence might have been conscious - we can call this a god - or not - call this a multiverse or a universe.

More specifically, it seems that one of these candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe must be correct:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

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.

What is clear is that we see patterns - regularities. Calling them designs subliminally suggests a designer.

We cannot assume purpose. It is not enough to say that the universe seems too complex to have self-assembled without the help of any intelligent agent. If one cannot demonstrate the intelligent designer, then one must prove that one is needed, something that an argument from incredulity cannot do. Nor can any other argument, test, observation, measurement, or algorithm. Naturalistic hypotheses cannot be justifiably eliminated from list of candidate hypotheses for either the universe or the life in it. Eliminating them is an act of faith and a logical error that results in an unjustified belief in an unsound conclusion.

 

[George-ananda]

Please discuss.

I liked the discussion. Basically he is describing the difference between dualistic (God and creation are two) versus non-dualistic (God and creation are not-two) thinking. Abrahamic religions are primarily dualistic, which OSHO finds problematic.

In fact when I gave the definition of non-dualistic (God and creation are not-two), the word 'God' is really a bridge word to a western-oriented audience. 'Brahman/Pure Consciousness Alone Is Real' is actually better. The universe is then understood as a play/drama of Brahman.

But without a deeper understanding of what OSHO means, on the surface western people will confuse his dislike of the noun God as something akin to western atheism which is generally a materialistic view and quite the opposite of OSHO's view that pure consciousness is the fundamental.

 

[sun rise]

I liked the discussion. Basically he is describing the difference between dualistic (God and creation are two) versus non-dualistic (God and creation are not-two) thinking. Abrahamic religions are primarily dualistic, which OSHO finds problematic.

In fact when I gave the definition of non-dualistic (God and creation are not-two), the word 'God' is really a bridge word to a western-oriented audience. 'Brahman/Pure Consciousness Alone Is Real' is actually better. The universe is then understood as a play/drama of Brahman.

But without a deeper understanding of what OSHO means, on the surface western people will confuse his dislike of the noun God as something akin to western atheism which is generally a materialistic view and quite the opposite of OSHO's view that pure consciousness is the fundamental.

I was about to dismiss this thread based on the first few comments until I read this post.

This typically Eastern frame-of-reference is, as @George-ananda stated, a common one. Meher Baba's Master's Prayer in part expresses the non-dualism thus:

...You are everywhere, You are in everything; and You are also beyond everywhere and beyond everything. You are in the firmament and in the depths. You are manifest and unmanifest, on all planes, and beyond all planes. You are in the three worlds, and also beyond the three worlds...

 

[PureX]

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.

Well, I would already have to disagree. Complexity is not an indication of efficient design. Nor of purposeful design. But it is an inevitable indication of intelligent design, for the simple reason that it requires intelligence to comprehend it.

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.

Yes, but this is itself a systematic process 'designed' to obtain a desired result, when followed. So the assumption that nature is "blind" would seem unnecessarily biased and fundamentally inaccurate. As nature would appear to have it's own destiny built into it, right from the very start, by those rules that govern the way energy can and cannot express itself.

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.

As the only other option would be something "supernatural", I'd say natural is a good assumption. However, I don't see how this rules out design, intelligence, or purpose.

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.

I don't understand why you seem to be assuming that these are mutually exclusive conditions. I am assuming that "nature" is the system by which such complexity is being achieved, and that it is doing so because it is an 'intelligent' system. There would appear to be little doubt that nature is intelligent design. It is then the source and purpose of that intelligence that is in question. Namely, is it cognitive? And does it pursue an intent?

 

[columbus]

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.

What is clear is that we see patterns - regularities. Calling them designs subliminally suggests a designer.

We cannot assume purpose. It is not enough to say that the universe seems too complex to have self-assembled without the help of any intelligent agent. If one cannot demonstrate the intelligent designer, then one must prove that one is needed, something that an argument from incredulity cannot do.

What is utterly clear to me is that anthropomorphizing the impersonal forces of nature is an emergent property of normal human mental processes. We've always done it.
From earthquakes and weather to infectious illnesses and psychosis, whatever we didn't understand was attributed to agency. God's, spirits, demons, angels, we automatically assume them. And they are basically the same as us, only ineffable and with superpowers.

Attributing the fact that there is something, rather than nothing, to such an ineffable, causeless, Being isn't really different.
Tom

 

[PureX]

What is utterly clear to me is that anthropomorphizing the impersonal forces of nature is an emergent property of normal human mental processes. We've always done it.
From earthquakes and weather to infectious illnesses and psychosis, whatever we didn't understand was attributed to agency. God's, spirits, demons, angels, we automatically assume them. And they are basically the same as us, only ineffable and with superpowers.

Attributing the fact that there is something, rather than nothing, to such an ineffable, causeless, Being isn't really different.
Tom

Yes, we humans do like to anthropomorphize the mysteries of life, so that we can pretend we understand them, and therefor have some control over them when we don't.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that we're wrong to do so.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Complexity is not an indication of efficient design. Nor of purposeful design. But it is an inevitable indication of intelligent design, for the simple reason that it requires intelligence to comprehend it.

That's a strange argument. You seem to be saying the equivalent of, that in order to comprehend that it is raining, for example, which also requires intelligence, that the rain must have been deliberately created by an intelligent designer.

So the assumption that nature is "blind" would seem unnecessarily biased and fundamentally inaccurate.

There is no such assumption. The claim is that there is no reason to assume that blind processes are incapable of generating the observed level of complexity, and that the possibility cannot be eliminated by fiat.

There would appear to be little doubt that nature is intelligent design.

You must be referring to how things appear to you. There is much more doubt out there than that which you acknowledge. I have considerable doubt that nature was intelligently designed.

 

[columbus]

Yes, we humans do like to anthropomorphize the mysteries of life, so that we can pretend we understand them, and therefor have some control over them when we don't.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that we're wrong to do so.

Maybe not necessarily, but sometimes it definitely is.
I believe one of the fundamental reasons for ID/Creationism is to support the agenda of religionists. Refusing to see the science means some ancient book is magically true, so it must be from God, and God says No Gay Marriage, so therefore legislation. That sort of thing.
Tom

 

[shmogie]

Jesus Christ also ran a sex cult , but he too did not talk about.

John 12:49 - For I did not speak of my own accord

You can't disprove it either.

What total, utter pap. You would have to search world wide to find ONE reputable scholar that would support this tumor of a thought.

 

[shmogie]

Maybe not necessarily, but sometimes it definitely is.
I believe one of the fundamental reasons for ID/Creationism is to support the agenda of religionists. Refusing to see the science means some ancient book is magically true, so it must be from God, and God says No Gay Marriage, so therefore legislation. That sort of thing.
Tom

Nonsense, oversimplification to the kindergarten level. The science you refer to is terribly flawed, I have been round and round this issue numerous times on this forum.Pick a field, any field, cosmology, astronomy, physics, biology, microbiology, and there are holes in each and every one when relating to the supposed evolution of he cosmos, abiogenesis, the nature of matter on a quantum scale, and more. ID is an alternative theory, that erases these holes for science, while creating others. "Science", i.e, secular science is like a religion to many. They, therefore abandon the scientific method of being open minded in favor of their religious doctrines, except for true scientists that look objectively and reject or accept a particular theory. A great example is the proven hiatus significant global warming for 17 years.The global warming religionists cannot accept the fact, so generate a flurry of misdirection, bogus studies, and unrelated fluff in response.

 

[Curious George]

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:



Sunstone, whose clear thinking I admire, responded:



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?

It was absolutely a logical fallacy. An exception occurs when the ad hominem is directly related to the issue. This was not.

Worse still, niether source supported the claim. The first source suggested that he allowed adults to have sex with minors in his cult, but there was not an example of him doing it. Unless I missed it, the charge was unfounded as well as being an attempt to damn argument by attacking his character.

His own sexual choices in the sources seem to contradict the charge as well. It seems to me that he chose the worst charge he could, which is wierd because there are so many evidenced accusations that he could have made.

 

[dianaiad]

Please discuss.

Oh, who cares what OSHO says. The point under discussion is 'there is no creator."

Whether or not there is a Creator has nothing to do with who OSHO is, what he has done or what he says. My own response to the claim "There is no creator" is....

Prove it.

Now me, I'm a dyed in the wool theist, and I believe very firmly that there IS a Creator of the universe. I cannot, however, prove that to anybody and don't pretend to be able to do so. I don't have a problem with that, and certainly don't figure that I have to be able to prove to some atheist that there IS a Creator God in order to believe in Him myself.

However, I DO have a problem with such intensely positive statements...like 'there IS a God..." or "There is no Creator," even as a premise for discussion. Perhaps because AS a premise for discussion, it's really begging the question.

However, should anyone wish to take the position of 'there is no creator,' so that they accept the burden of proof and all the theists among us have to do is shoot down the arguments made, I'm all for that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh, who cares what OSHO says

Indeed.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Osho is a failure and an imbecile. Everything he says is fluff and it only serves to make me question his intelligence. I know many dumb people who have a smart-funny comeback on every topic and Oshi fits this bill entirely.

I also never cared for this video either.

 

[columbus]

Osho is a failure and an imbecile. Everything he says is fluff and it only serves to make me question his intelligence.

I agree.
But that just makes him sound like most Christian leaders. What am I missing?
Tom

 

[Sha'irullah]

I agree.
But that just makes him sound like most Christian leaders. What am I missing?
Tom

Agreed, I do not find him special at all. As you said, I think he is no different than Chopra or Joel Osteen at the end of the day. He just has a big beard and looks like a mystical guru which is perfect for marketing.

 

[columbus]

Agreed, I do not find him special at all. As you said, I think he is no different than Chopra or Joel Osteen at the end of the day. He just has a big beard and looks like a mystical guru which is perfect for marketing.

Bunch a dang religious people, making up stuff and saying what they have to say to stay rich.
I don't like religion much, in case you didn't notice.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

Bunch a dang religious people, making up stuff and saying what they have to say to stay rich.
I don't like religion much, in case you didn't notice.
Tom

It's not the religion. It's the people who claim to believe in the religion--while changing the rules to suit themselves.

I figured that out when I saw exactly the same problems among atheists, agnostics, 'ignostics' and just plain people who don't think about the whole thing that much.

 

[Mindmaster]

I have read up on Osho and have seen nothing that can be considered a reliable source that says he molested children. That is certainly not where his controversy lies.

And @Lyndon, your use of that argument could easily be used against one of the largest religions in the world.

@Sunstone (as well)

I find it charming to sit idly by as certain factions on this forum "eat their own", but I can't help myself. Anyway, nothing stated in that video is something I wasn't directly aware of (other posts around here allude as much). I have never felt that deity was anything more than something akin to a "conscious ancestor" to exploit the terminology used in the video. My delving into that matter backs his opinion, though I got there through observation not milling away with it logically. I go a bit further in that I feel the "creator" divided itself to replicate... There are many reasons why I could imagine this, but that creator probably wasn't some anthropomorphic being. I know the gods (even Satan) as the first conscious beings or as near as I can tell. Obviously, that makes ideas like panenthiesm and pantheism rubbish - the gods are distinct beings, the creations are distinct, etc. To use a simple analogy, imagine you were a single celled life form - how could it make more? It's obvious that you have to split because sex isn't possible. It is likely that consciousness itself was the OG. Spiritually, I am aware of this "thread" between all living beings and it's still there... So the creator didn't die, it became many creations... Gods, people, cats, whatever.