Infinite regress.

[JimL]

There's a difference between not being able to explain and trying to get someone to understand. You're hung up on the terminology - I was trying to get you to see that, not make a case from this.

First off my comment about not having a clue was not directed at you, it was directed at anyone attempting to define a God/mind, or even that such a strange mind exists, when they, even admittedly, know nothing of it.

Oh, and the answer to your other question is 'that's what we have evidence of'. Scripture tells us God's thoughts are not like human thoughts.

Interesting, do you have a relevant verse? Anyway, evidence is not proof of anything, and evidence that can not be tested is hardly evidence at all. One could argue that the believers of what you would call myths had scriptural evidence for the validity of their beliefs as well, but would you really call that evidence?

A mindless universe wouldn't use information - no comprehension, not thoughts, no processing = no usage.

Yes, it would use the information, not by will as would a mind, but it would in the sense of being bound by it. It operates and is ruled by its own laws. Sort of like a mind defined in a way that it has no need of thoughts, comprehending, or mentally processing.

An eternal existence of the cosmos? Yeah, you need a First Cause for that so the need exists.

Thats an unproven assertion. Thats what this debate is about. If you are going to make the argument that an active Cosmos needs a first cause, then you need to explain why an active God/mind does not. If whatever it is that we call time is eternal, which I haven't seen any reason to believe that it is not, then obviously the Cosmos would not be in need of a first cause anymore than would a God/mind. I know that theists like to argue that time begins with the birth of the universe, but there is absolutely no evidence of that, no more so than there is evidence that time began at the time of your birth. Time began "for" the universe at its birth, it began "for" you at your birth, but there is no evidence that it didn't exists previously.

Also, the human mind cannot be 'reasonably explained' - try explaining consciousness - so that point is moot.

If the human mind can not be explained then why would you use it as analogy in explaining the God/mind? Consciousness is easy to explain, its the opposite of unconsciousness. We know and can explain the difference between the two. Consciousness is not a thing in itself anymore so than is unconsciousness, so there is nothing to explain of it in intself.

No, you're mistaken - Leo (and to a lesser extent, I) are not describing God the way you keep interpreting it. Let me come back to this - I'm not sure where the problem is. My inclination is to think that your views on eternality are at issue but maybe it's in the explanation - I need to think about it.

Okay.

[Teallaura]

ok

Thanks.


I'll get back to this a bit later, Jim - your post will take longer to respond to.