Do you believe in God?

I agree with your intelligent design approach. It's a no-brainer as far as I am concerned. To have complexity there is a need for complex origin.

However I stop short here at trying to go any further with defining what such a creator may be. Everything is speculation.

Yes, there is.


"The big guy must have done it" is not complex. It's an incredibly simplified, anachronistic, unenlightened way of thinking about things which, let us never forget, originated thousands of years ago when science was less than a dot on the horizon.

That doesn't dismiss the possibility of a rational argument for the existence of a grand designer. What we lack is the understanding of what such a being means. Omniscient and omnipotent are just quaint words, until someone can provide a rational explanation as to where and how and why such a being came to be, or whether such a being was eternal.

These questions I have resolved through my own reasoning. So it would be an assumption on someone else's part (speaking from my viewpoint) to assume the thinking only relfects past superstitions, etc. Someday I'll post my rational explanation for what I think this 'being ... creator' is, and why ... the explanation is not just a rehash of past thinking, philosophical, religious, or otherwise; and I think it amounts to an airtight philosophical argument. It's in answer to Immanuel Kant's challenge to speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to the level of a science. That however, needs some explanation as well. What did Kant mean by a 'science of metaphysics.'

Pure reason can answer questions that go beyond physics, in this regard. That's where I'm coming from ... not from a religious position.

An open mind is like a pickup truck in the city...People will always take the opportunity to fill it with garbage...

We are all life-energies occupying a physical body to experience. Collectively, all of our life-energies, or souls, created this world we live in.

I would like to hear more about your theory. Not because I am looking for some almighty replacement, but because my mind is always open to speculation.

Immanuel Kant offered a challenge in his "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Prolegomena" for speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to what he called a 'science of metaphysics.' My own interpretation of what Kant meant by a science was a system of reasoning (a priori -or pure, in the sense that the judgments that would comprise such a science would not be derived from experience, but from reason alone). I could give you an example, but when I have the time I'll post my answer to Kant. It's called "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." It's a self-contained theory (but my viewpoint which may be considered biased, being the author, is that it does present the one and only possible solution to the question of the origin of spacetime, matter, and mind, or consciousness).

Kant also speaks about a synthesis of pure understanding in his critical philosophy. There are an abundance of Kantian speculations as well in both the works mentioned above. Kant provided both direction and clues to what I've formulated, not just by following his direction and his clues, but by thinking through the system. It's a necessary, straightforward line of reasoning. My argument will be that it satisfies Kant's critical demands. It will be for others to show where this is not so, if it's possible. I'm open to criticism, but my argument will be that the argument as a whole, is infallible --strong words, huh!

When I post the argument the thread will be titled: "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." And I'll make reference to Kant in the argument, as well as Hegel, and Hume. The argument also necessitates that the universe did begin with a singularity, and the big bang did happen; although it only supports it by way of a pure philosophical argument; not through bringing up the scientific evidence in support of the big bang. It also supports what science has been able to discover about the past history of the earth and the progression towards higher life forms.

The argument consists of four a priori principles (philosophers can argue whether indeed they are a priori -I simply claim that they are, according to Kant's definition of a priori) ... the Causal Principle, the Principle of Divergence, the Principle of Equal Relation, and the Principle of Progressive Design. All the principles follow necessarily, one from the other and the premise of the argument follows to the final conclusion, necessarily. There is no guess work, only a general philosophical theory, that's the equivalent to a mathematical theory --only here there is no use of numbers, there are only four principles derived from pure reason.

Have you already stated that this is purely your thesis, or is this also found in some already established group?

And please make sure that I am able to follow up on your work here because I am extremely interested in seeing what you have come up with. Please also take time to visit my blog and see how my line of thinking falls into place with your yours or where you may have advice against.

Immanuel Kant offered a challenge in his "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Prolegomena" for speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to what he called a 'science of metaphysics.' My own interpretation of what Kant meant by a science was a system of reasoning (a priori -or pure, in the sense that the judgments that would comprise such a science would not be derived from experience, but from reason alone). I could give you an example, but when I have the time I'll post my answer to Kant. It's called "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." It's a self-contained theory (but my viewpoint which may be considered biased, being the author, is that it does present the one and only possible solution to the question of the origin of spacetime, matter, and mind, or consciousness).

Kant also speaks about a synthesis of pure understanding in his critical philosophy. There are an abundance of Kantian speculations as well in both the works mentioned above. Kant provided both direction and clues to what I've formulated, not just by following his direction and his clues, but by thinking through the system. It's a necessary, straightforward line of reasoning. My argument will be that it satisfies Kant's critical demands. It will be for others to show where this is not so, if it's possible. I'm open to criticism, but my argument will be that the argument as a whole, is infallible --strong words, huh!

When I post the argument the thread will be titled: "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." And I'll make reference to Kant in the argument, as well as Hegel, and Hume. The argument also necessitates that the universe did begin with a singularity, and the big bang did happen; although it only supports it by way of a pure philosophical argument; not through bringing up the scientific evidence in support of the big bang. It also supports what science has been able to discover about the past history of the earth and the progression towards higher life forms.

The argument consists of four a priori principles (philosophers can argue whether indeed they are a priori -I simply claim that they are, according to Kant's definition of a priori) ... the Causal Principle, the Principle of Divergence, the Principle of Equal Relation, and the Principle of Progressive Design. All the principles follow necessarily, one from the other and the premise of the argument follows to the final conclusion, necessarily. There is no guess work, only a general philosophical theory, that's the equivalent to a mathematical theory --only here there is no use of numbers, there are only four principles derived from pure reason.

The principal of conservation, or identity, seem an a'priori... We accept it on its face, and we know it before we can reason it true...

Gojo1978, amen, amen and indeed! As an ignostic, I find that He lacks meaning in that His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, and even the arguments for Him reflect that lack.:eek:
So, how could there even be evidence for Him?:detective:
God is crying that He can neither think nor act as being disembodied ,He has no brain and thus no mind. Isn't theology wonderful? I think that Prof. Irwin Corey makes more sense than theologians!:poke-eye:

You have to have a brain to have a mind? I thought they were seperate and the mind is immaterial.

You have to have a brain to have a mind? I thought they were seperate and the mind is immaterial.

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something, you see.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

That's a bit old school, is it not?

Prevailing philosophical wisdom tends not to see it that way.