Of course I'm positing an anthropomorphic god? If there is nothing similar to god and man, we couldn't even concieve such a thing, now, could we?
It does represent the end of the line for scientific inquiry though.
Isn't the point obvious to you yet? The hebrew patriarchs were envisioning a god that is not of any human form. That's part of the reason they were the odd kids in the 'fertile crescent civilizations' neighborhood.
God's anthropomorphism was something more fundamental than form.
This is all nonsense. And I have roundly debunked this nonsense ages ago.
As I have stated in the gravity thread, we do not exactly know the true nature of gravity except that it exists in the natural world. And because we believe it exists, we also believe it can be defined absolutely in the language of science and mathematics (that is, it is wholly a rational phenomenon). There is nothing to support the idea that gravity is wholly rational (except by intuition) and the questions keep coming as if it were. And to a very large part, we are correct in this, although such an absolute definition still eludes us.
Understand?
Please don't pretend to lecture me about the scientific method.
We also know that, when we eliminate all probable explanations from a field of possibility, whatever remains, though improbable, must be true. Its been done this way before, it is being done this way presently.
Your mind is ridiculously open if you can state with absolute conviction, god's non-existence and yet cannot state your own existence, equally. And while these sort of statements are sufficient for morons like dawk, it really sounds absurd for people using logical rigor.
Isn't the statement -- the cause of EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING, attributing gravity to god enough for you?
I think your pre-occupation with 'froth' completely clouds your rational faculties.
And what elements of this 'self-aware computer' is fundamentally different from god, eh?
And if they have the same elements, why go against the principle of okham's razor, postulating computers making gods making everything is an unnecessary waste of brain cells.
Fact -- there are rational principles and there is the principle of volition or will.
You eat to assuage your hunger and to sustain you physically. You eat a particular food at a particular time simply because you like to. So, we have attributed two very distinct reasons for a simple act of eating.
Right down to the behavior of elementary particles, you have aspects that behave quantum mechanically, and there is a degree of uncertainty to its motion.
Is it not reasonable then, that the first cause has rationality and will? Is there any other principle you could think of that does not involve these two? And lastly, in the question of cosmology, is it entirely logical to presume that whatever caused everything has only one of these two principles?
