The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 2:00 pm what if it is in the nature of humans to try to find a cause to a perceived effect?

-Imp

You don’t need to find a cause , just be cause. Build a house with bricks, houses don’t build themselves. That’s being a creator, just as you were created, you didn’t build yourself did you, but something did.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 3:53 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 2:00 pm what if it is in the nature of humans to try to find a cause to a perceived effect?

-Imp

You don’t need to find a cause , just be cause. Build a house with bricks, houses don’t build themselves. That’s being a creator, just as you were created, you didn’t build yourself did you, but something did.

nope- mom told me I was dropped off by a stork

-Imp

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 10:26 pm

Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 9:06 pm ...there are no “miracles” in the form of violation of the Law of Nature.

Laws of nature are revisable.

The formulations of scientific laws are being refined, but the Regularity of nature remain unchanged, of course.

You don't understand the definition of "miracle." A "miracle" is, by definition, a divine intervention that produces something contrary to the expected, or contrary to what would otherwise happen.

Even ancient people knew this. They knew that water doesn't stand up in walls by itself. They knew that food didn't fall from the sky. They knew that lamps do not burn when they run out of oil. They knew that dead men do not rise from the dead.

Which is precisely why they called such events a "miracle." Had they had any reason to expect it, they would have simply called it "an event."

In ancient times, stories about breaking the natural order were considered as argument,

Evidently not. Evidently they were regarded as "miracles." After all, that's exactly what they called them.

A miracle can be in the form of an amazing coincidence, but not one that violates the natural order.

Miracles are not "violations" of anything. They're cases of the Creator suspending the rules in his creation, for some unusual purpose He has. And after they're over, things go right back the way they were.

Which means that what you see today is exactly the same thing as you should expect to see, if the miracle in question had really happened. So there's no way at all to tell from the present state of affairs whether or not that state of affairs has ever been suspended. Torah says, it has. You can believe Torah, or you can reject Torah, of course; but you can't say it doesn't claim exactly what it claims.

*** particularism and specialness, ***
Israel's unique feature was its more adequate worldview.

"More adequate" to what? What determined the measure of "adequacy"? You insist that God is not immanent in His creation anymore. So He cannot possibly have an opinion about what is "adequate" or not. How then do you establish that your worldview is any better than, say, radical Islam or raw paganism?

"For out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem". The Land of Israel is perhaps suitable for this task.
But this is "Limited Liability", Israel is destined to prove its truth.

But if you believe in strict Uniformitarianism (i.e. the belief that there's some "law" that says that the way things are now is the same as they always have to have been), then Israel cannot possibly be anything special, and it can't have any "destiny," since nobody and nothing is arranging what outcome it has. What you'd have to think is that God never met with Abraham, there are no actual promises to Israel, Jerusalem is nothing more than another dusty town, and to be Jewish is nothing special whatsoever.

Are those things you believe? If not, on what basis do you believe the opposite?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 3:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 4:12 am

...doesn't get you very far EXCEPT against the claim "No God exists".

Well, that is the topic of this thread. And that's the right starting point. So it's done its job. We don't need to ask it to do more.

As I said earlier, question 2 comes into play only after argument 1, and has a different line of reasoning. You're certainly right that we're not going to be able to deduce much more than a few basic facts about the nature of the Creator from the state of the creation itself. But we can certainly see the hand of some Creator.

And if that works for you, we've satisified the challenge of the OP.

MAYBE ...... I know it is hard for you to see the (potential) problem. The fact that you use language like "we certainly see the hand of some Creator" shows how firmly committed to creation EXTERNAL to God. The problem is that many theists do not consider pantheists to be theists and some pantheists wouldn't self describe as theist precisely because they know most theists believe in an EXTERNAL deity.

"External" is a confusing word. It can mean "outside," but doesn't explain exactly what "outside" is being implicated: "outside" men? "Outside" the universe? "Outside" the material world?

If what you mean, though, is that there's a distinction between the Creator and His creation, you are correct. Yet both Christians and Jews believe in a God who is not only transcendent but immanent, as well. (https://www.gotquestions.org/immanence-of-God.html) That is, God is beyond his creation, and not subject to it, but is also acting within the creation, and thus is not "outside," not "external" in any total sense at all.

In your opinion are Pantheists theists?

Of a sort, but of a limited sort. They certainly believe in a "god" concept, but it's certainly not the real God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 7:06 pm

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 10:26 pm
Laws of nature are revisable.

The formulations of scientific laws are being refined, but the Regularity of nature remain unchanged, of course.

A "miracle" is, by definition, a divine intervention

Do you believe that the Apostle Peter walked on water?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 7:13 pm If what you mean, though, is that there's a distinction between the Creator and His creation, you are correct. Yet both Christians and Jews believe in a God who is not only transcendent but immanent, as well. (https://www.gotquestions.org/immanence-of-God.html) That is, God is beyond his creation, and not subject to it, but is also acting within the creation, and thus is not "outside," not "external" in any total sense at all.

In your opinion are Pantheists theists?

Of a sort, but of a limited sort. They certainly believe in a "god" concept, but it's certainly not the real God.

You make quite clear what you believe. And yes, I agree Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.all believe God is transcendent and immanent.

And I am not surprised that you don't consider Pantheists proper deists. I wish though, that you were more careful how you expressed things. You perhaps mean "I (or I as a Christian) say "Pantheists believe in a "god concept" but it's certainly not the real God". Something that you believe is truth as opposed to stating it AS TRUTH.

BUT --- in that case how do you get from "creationism" to God? I can't see why Pantheism doesn't satisfy the "creationism" model. Nothing about the wonders of creation necessarily leads to "and the God who created the universe also continues to exist outside it". This God could have existed before creation (no universe) but created the universe by becoming it.

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 11:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 7:06 pm

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:50 pm
The formulations of scientific laws are being refined, but the Regularity of nature remain unchanged, of course.

A "miracle" is, by definition, a divine intervention

Do you believe that the Apostle Peter walked on water?

Well, Jesus being the Son of God, why not?

But why are you ignoring all my questions? How can you believe in a "chosen" people, when nobody "chose" them, and a "destiny," when nobody "destined" them for anything, and a "more adequate" worldview, when there is no objective standard of "adequacy"? For you disbelieve in HaShem ever having intervened...so none of these things can have happened. There can be no Promised Land, no Jerusalem belonging to Jews, and no particular outcome of all that is happening to be expected at all.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 11:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 7:13 pm If what you mean, though, is that there's a distinction between the Creator and His creation, you are correct. Yet both Christians and Jews believe in a God who is not only transcendent but immanent, as well. (https://www.gotquestions.org/immanence-of-God.html) That is, God is beyond his creation, and not subject to it, but is also acting within the creation, and thus is not "outside," not "external" in any total sense at all.

In your opinion are Pantheists theists?

Of a sort, but of a limited sort. They certainly believe in a "god" concept, but it's certainly not the real God.

You make quite clear what you believe. And yes, I agree Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.all believe God is transcendent and immanent.

And I am not surprised that you don't consider Pantheists proper deists.

Wait. You said "Theists." Check your own message. "Deists" are something quite different.

how do you get from "creationism" to God?

Very easily. If we live in a "creation," then it has a "Creator," by definition. Now, we can argue about what the nature of that Creator is, but we can't say that if we've conceded creation that we don't need to be assuming a Creator.

I can't see why Pantheism doesn't satisfy the "creationism" model.

Nobody said it didn't "satisfy" some "creation model". I just said it wasn't the real God. That's quite a different claim.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:16 am

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 11:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 7:06 pm

A "miracle" is, by definition, a divine intervention

Do you believe that the Apostle Peter walked on water?

Well, Jesus being the Son of God, why not?

It is impossible to prove anything to someone who believes in absurdities, because scientific proof is based on the immutability of Regularity of nature, otherwise it is a fairy tale.

By the way, it is striking that Jews often figure in important matters, and the Jewish Jesus also figures prominently, but this is no reason to overdo it and make a cult out of him.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:21 am

I can't see why Pantheism doesn't satisfy the "creationism" model.

Nobody said it didn't "satisfy" some "creation model". I just said it wasn't the real God. That's quite a different claim.

Understood that you believe this.

But then what exactly would be meant by "creation model" => the existence of God. If it can imply the existence of a false god (not God) then it doesn't to you imply the existence of God.

Am I correct you mean to say "creation model AND <something else> => God. Then should refrain from "creation model" => God

Janoah wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 4:27 pm It is impossible to prove anything...

Sorry...I'm not seeing an answer to my questions. Just an ad hominem, with an attempt to escape.

Let me ask you again, and most pointedly: is Israel "chosen"? Do Jews have a special right to Jerusalem? Why is the Jewish worldview, according to you, "more adequate," and what is it "more adequate" relative to? And how do you believe the Jews have any particular destiny?

If you believe ANY of these things, then you have to also believe in God, and in an immanent and even miracle-performing God, too. There's no other way these beliefs can be held.

In which case, all your objection also goes away like smoke. HaShem CAN intervene, and has, and plausibly may in the future, then, just as Torah also insists.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 4:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:21 am

I can't see why Pantheism doesn't satisfy the "creationism" model.

Nobody said it didn't "satisfy" some "creation model". I just said it wasn't the real God. That's quite a different claim.

Understood that you believe this.

Well, whether or not I "believe" it is not really relevant. What's relevant is what's true. What one person believes may or may not be the truth. Mere belief will not convert a delusion into a fact. Nor will disbelief render the true not true.

But then what exactly would be meant by "creation model" => the existence of God. If it can imply the existence of a false god (not God) then it doesn't to you imply the existence of God.

No, that doesn't follow. Once you agree there's evidence "for creation," you're already conceding the existence of a Creator. Which Creator is always the second question, not the first, and lacking the answer to the second question, or even having the wrong answer, does not logically undo the first question.

There's still "a Creator": we're just ready to debate which one it is, now.

Janoah wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 4:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:16 am

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 11:08 pm

Do you believe that the Apostle Peter walked on water?

Well, Jesus being the Son of God, why not?

It is impossible to prove anything to someone who believes in absurdities, because scientific proof is based on the immutability of Regularity of nature, otherwise it is a fairy tale.

By the way, it is striking that Jews often figure in important matters, and the Jewish Jesus also figures prominently, but this is no reason to overdo it and make a cult out of him.

It is a great pity that those who believe in the supernatural will ignore logic, reason and especially the immorality of their God.

Supernatural believers never discus their God's ethics.

Jews tend to do so and that is why Moses rejected Yahweh and his promised land.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 4:48 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 4:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:21 am
Nobody said it didn't "satisfy" some "creation model". I just said it wasn't the real God. That's quite a different claim.

Understood that you believe this.

Well, whether or not I "believe" it is not really relevant. What's relevant is what's true. What one person believes may or may not be the truth. Mere belief will not convert a delusion into a fact. Nor will disbelief render the true not true.

But then what exactly would be meant by "creation model" => the existence of God. If it can imply the existence of a false god (not God) then it doesn't to you imply the existence of God.

No, that doesn't follow. Once you agree there's evidence "for creation," you're already conceding the existence of a Creator. Which Creator is always the second question, not the first, and lacking the answer to the second question, or even having the wrong answer, does not logically undo the first question.

There's still "a Creator": we're just ready to debate which one it is, now.

We adults who have put away the things of children, are the creators.

Jesus is clear on this where he asks us, "have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

The Bible is also clear where it says we know good and evil and should hold to, the good.

The only fit God for a person, is a person. Think Gnostic Cathars and their Parfait. Perfected human.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 9:49 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 8:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 4:30 pmCreation is marked by all kinds of irreducible complexities, from cosmic scale dependent complexity (like the size of our moon being perfect for producing the right gravitational effects on oceans, for example)

Well, the size of the moon creates the tides that it does, so in that respect, it is the perfect size for doing so. What makes that "the right gravitational effects on oceans"?

"A larger moon would trigger catastrophic tidal surges, massive earthquakes, and extreme volcanic activity due to increased gravitational pull. Conversely, a smaller moon would result in much darker nights, requiring adapted vision for nocturnal animals , and a destabilized planetary tilt, triggering volatile climate shifts ." (Source: ABC)

There is evidence in the fossil record that supports the hypothesis that life began about 4 billion years ago, when there was extreme volcanic activity on Earth. If you are familiar with the range of environments in which complex life not only survives, but thrives, you will appreciate that tides, earthquakes, darkness and climate shifts are no barrier to life on Earth. A different size moon would be catastrophic for current conditions. Equally, a moon the size of ours would be catastrophic to any ecosystem that might have evolved in different circumstances. Irreducible complexity is just God of the gaps.