If Super intelligence aka God does not exist then how do we account for the human capacity for rational thought ? If our mind is a result of mindless unguided processes then can we really trust it or even trust Scientists for that matter . See this really undermine our rationality and in turn undermine everything else. If you had a computer and you know it is a result of mindless unguided processes, would you trust it?
this is a common argument for there being a god. before I say what I am about to say, I do have a Bible and Theology B.S. in Christian Studies with a minor in Evangelism from a national accreditted private university. but, a god is not necessary for me or anyone else to have trust in their rational thought processes or the conclusions of those rational thought processes, but it is foolish and unwise to not also test those conclusions as well which is what science is and does. no god is necessary for me to trust my brain computer, or you to trust yours. Period. the reason I say this is I believe it is perfectly rational to believe in a creator of some kind based on the vast ordered nature of the universe and the laws that govern it that we are able to test and prove. but it is highly unlikely and more evidence exists in there not being a god, especially seeing as if there was such a being it is logical to conclude they would not need worship, would not be jealous, would not need blood sacrifice, and would not destroy their creations as like the christian god. a god is a logical conclusion, just unlikely. also, "Question Everything" because you can never be sure. and, it is arrogant to assume--not calling you arrogant just the argument, we are all friends here--that anyone who does not believe in a god believes we are the consequence of random, unordered processes as well, or that our brains are the consequences of such. Their are many worldviews out there. And we could account for the power and empirically valid nature of our minds many different ways. .......... what others call God, could be Matthew sitting in a computer chair, in his mother's basement, playing the latest universe simulator, of which we could be a part of. the physics of the observer, the double slit experiment, the lie of quantum computing, and the fact that atoms never touch, proves to me we are in a living biological simulation of some kind with our consciouness/interface interfacing with it, which we are part of it, and it part of us, just like computer code would be.
which is sort of the motto of the church of satan, which i agree with, the motto not the church. satan is like the ultimate iconclast against tolitarianism, so the head of the church of satan says. see at about 2:30, real freedom if you listen he takes the stance of exercising constitutional freedom and actually working within the bounds of the law. i wish i could find the one where he says basically what you say...damn youtube search sucks now
Ok did not know that this was a common argument per sey , but i knew that it was a doubt of Darwin written in one off his letters. I agree with you and that's why i prefer to call it Supernatural not necessarily A God. But to say that i trust the brain to Determine if the brain is brain is circular argument. First time i hear about more evidence exists in there not being a god? The fact is even if all religions were false, does not mean that Supernatural does not exist. As you pointed out it's a common argument against a common belief. Even Matthew have to come from somewhere and the fact we are here having this moment means there cannot exist a world where dependent things depend on dependent things to infinity. excuse my not so perfect English.
God doesn't need to be omniscient, God doesn't need to know anything, God would have "Real free will" meaning whatever God wills will be. Humans are the only ones trying to be omniscient, because they want "Real free will" Not God given "free will" meaning they want to think there way FREE of God, so they can become God's themselves, because they still believe in the "serpent's" lies...
How about this. An omniscient God can create another God that's omniscient and then it multiplies., then what ? a) then everyone is God and free will is existent or non-existent? Seems it will remain non-existent. b) they just beat the hell out of each other because they like measuring things. Eventually they destroy each other and we are left with a Godless existence. Free Will exists? Or maybe there never was a God and this concept is just humans being scared of the unknown. Then what?
[no worries on your language my friend. it could be tough to get an accurate translation of my words in that case. i hope not.] Not necessarily and that is the faultiest argument for a god in fact. If there is a god you have to explain where it came from because it doesn't get the privilige of existing without having a beginning just because you say so. period. calling something god doesn't give it the privilige of being self-existent just because anyone says so. It is like sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to see the fallacy in such an argument to assert such. to just say because there is something here there must be a god, and nothing created that god, but that he is self existent. It's just pretty dumb. I can make the same case for the universe. And you couldn't prove me wrong. One can easily substitute "the universe," or "nature," or the "flying spaghetti monster," for "god" and still make just as little sense. Saying there is a self-existent god because of the existence of the universe and all this stuff and people, and using that as a proof, or a trump card on the argument, which is what a lot of christians do, shows that most haven't really critically thought about the matter. a self-existent god definitely isn't necessary for the universe to exist. it is existing just fine without any help. and since there have been no gods proven or even massly exemplified here to humanity, it is existing and thriving in spite of the absence of a god. the universe itself could be self-existent. and you could be calling the universe god without realizing, and the universe could punish you because it feels slighted lol. (this last comment is just a crude joke on christianity)
There can never be more than one omniscient supernatural because off conflict of will and the fact we have order in the universe means there is only one such. It's like asking why we can not have two drivers or more in the same care at the same time. if the first driver want to go to the left and the other want to go to the right. where will the car go?
Ok it seems you didn't catch my contingency argument. In fact i didn't even call it God. Saying who caused the uncaused causer is like asking who baked the baker!! Just because the baker bakes bread is illogical to ask who baked him/her. No you can't logically make that argument because the universe," or "nature," or the "flying spaghetti monster," are contingent. I will say it again there cannot exist a world where dependent things depend on dependent things to infinity. witch means there would not be a start and we would not have this moment now. Again my friend and speaking logically we know that from nothing .nothing comes! 0+0=0. and we know that the universe did not create it self because it would have to exist and not exist in the same time! contradiction. Fact is from red shift and universe expanding means the universe is contingent and not eternal. Ps: (contingent would be anything that either made of parts or could be any other way.) Thererfor only rational explanation is an uncaused causer , independent and every thing depend on it. and it self does not depend on anything. otherwise we fall back to a world where dependent things depend on dependent things to infinity! and if that was the case we would not come to this moment now.
Again, I have a theology degree, I am aware of what you meant, but NO, you can't just say there must be an uncaused mover, or uncaused causer of everything just because you want there to be one. Doesn't work that way, and that is why it isn't an argument for a god at all. Again, I can say the same thing about the Universe itself, and NO you cannot explain it away as not being able to be self-existent or eternal if you really believe that it is plausible for some IMAGINARY BEING to exist or some IMAGINARY SUPERINTELLIGENCE to exist on its own, my supposition is just as valid AND EVEN MORE VALID because I can see the Universe and know for a fact it exists. lots of scientists disagree with you on this, one in particular, I forget his name, says it is foolish to ask for a beginning of the universe because it always existed in one form or another, which yes is just as valid as saying some superintelligence or some imaginary god always existed. Your argument isn't one, period. Brian Greene says the question of what existed before the Big Bang is not a question at all because there was no before, time began with it. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CyYRIaSiVlM Also, the Universe could be the so-called superintelligence you want to believe in. It is just as plausible and even moreso because we know it is real, or at least have a real experience of it within our consciousness. the universe, your existence, etc doesn't have to makes logical sense, that is not a requirement of our reality, and we can't dictate the nature of our reality. just because we logically conclude there is an uncaused mover, doesn't by necessity mean there is one or has to be one. you confuse logic with reality, they are independent of each other. in fact, we could be wrong about the logical conclusions we have come to through science and not even know it, ever or until later in the future. you needing an uncaused mover to satisfy your logic doesn't make it necessary nor is a proof such exists. Even beyond that, it is so arrogant to think that you can dictate that the universe must make logical sense, and the only way for that to be is if there is an "uncaused mover." I mean, really? The universe doesn't have to make logical sense.
You Straw Man may Argument and didn't really respond to the points i made, i didn't say it must be uncaused causer of everything just because i want it to be one! I said that the fact that we have a moment right now means that there are not a chain of infinite regress of causes. And are you really saying that the "Consensus" in Science is that the universe is eternal and did not start? Red shift, universe expanding , big bang ? So you are saying we should use other tools and disregard logic and rationality in this convo? I have an interesting question for you Do you believe you exist?
Causality may well be a flaw in human thinking. Apparently we feel the need to invent beings that created everything. Why can't something have always existed?
Causality is by design, so that humans can have a working relationship between cause and effect, so they can learn to use there "free will" to manifest their ideas, reality, and inventions into reality, where as God can just use "Real free will" to will anything with NO consequences to God, where as humans need consequences, to learn to use there "free will" within God's laws, this is why humans are trying to be omniscient, so they can be FREE of God's consequences for not understanding, learning the laws on how things work for humans...