Aman Uensis

And it's rather amazing that people can be hung up on the one thing, whereby if they took that one thing out they still can't comment on the other aspects of my system The same response. Across all forums. Christian or Atheist. So right back at ya I accept that you can make the argument against God. Old dead men have made the rules of engagement and we cling to them dearly. Now do it for all my other stuff. I'm still waiting. So the moral of the story is never assume. But if we assume that scientific observations are supremely constant because we have been able to observe every single instance of those phenomenon and build on top of that then that is acceptable. At least I can admit my leap of faith. My limitations.

Noted Again, perhaps it is a futile distinction, but I don't assume anything. I'm taking theists assumptions about God and applying my system to them. I know you told me not to jump to conclusions but you seem rather hung up on this one thing. It rather reminds me in a circular way of one of the atheists greatest weapons against theists, or at least very formal atheists. It's to do with the placement of onus of proof, in that the burden falls upon the theist to provide some proof of God before any debate can be entered into by the atheist. Where the onus is placed is a key clue in whether subsequent proceedings are meant to stymie debate or get to the truth. Regardless, placing the onus all on one party is not a natural thing to do. Rather it is a rule made by man. If I was to go into battle it would be lazy and unwise on my part to go into it without any weapons or to assume my opponent would not be able to hurt me. But if this isn't you then ignore my ramblings. I can accept this rule of logic. But as I said, my system doesn't depend on God. Although it is hard to see from my original thread question, the strength of my system does not rest on an assumption. I will contend that my inquiry is actually stronger than scientific theory. Cue indignation Why do I say that? Well, I didn't realize this before this thread but the structures I was harping on about were called abstract structures. And I hate to use wikipedia but apparently "an abstract structure has a richer structure than a concept or an idea". In essence, scientific theories are taking observations of patterns of natural phenomena to predict more phenomena. But nothing is set in stone. What applies here might not necessarily apply somewhere else in this universe, in another dimension etc. But the laws of physics, matter itself, depend on the abstract structures I speak of in order to be. So I'm willing to bet that these structures are a constant of existence. Undeniable by any standard. By any side of the science/religion divide. A leap of faith, yes, but rather more than unicorns no? Argue as you will against the theists. I am not one of them. My inquiry still stands. Unfortunately. It would be great if you could actually answer my responses properly rather than ignore what you can't answer. There is no shame in being able to shape a proper comeback. But the fact remains, yes, you've all been able to pick the usual holes regarding God, but nothing about the heart of my inquiry or my other propositions. Let me give you some advice - as with all the threads I starts, this one is beginning to dwindle. You'll probably say that it's because I'm being proven wrong. But the evidence is here in the thread. I've been courteous enough to try and answer everyone's questions politely. But I can trace every unanswered response of mine, and if that must be the measure of victory then so be it (though I'm not here for that). So maybe do as everyone else does and simply stop responding. This thread will die on its own and you can go back to business as usual and forget I was ever here. Nevertheless, my inquiry still stands. Lol I don't understand a third of the words you've used, which reveals my ignorance in these matters. The consequence of all this? As I told Dimreepr, this is a futile inquiry. There are no consequences. We must live life and this doesn't change anything. So why do it? Well, I would rather think that anything that gives any insight into our existence might be of some use? It might give some perspective on the things that we kill each other over. What I'm doing is proposing a model for the construct of existence using undeniable aspects of our existence which include abstract structures and infinity. As I said before, trying to work around my inquiry with the usual theology or whatnot won't work. Why? Because the fact of existence must come before all else, yes? Anything afterward, ruminations on God, observations of science etc come after. Anything else is the derivative. I'm asking for 1. People are intent on giving me 2, 3, 4, 100 etc. In summary, there are two directions the human can go. The first, you can try and discover the mysteries of this universe, of God etc and that in itself is a worthy purpose. That will probably last until we are extinct. We all have to play the game after all. But if you're wondering about why anything exists at all? You have to go in the other direction. But ultimately you will come up against a brick wall. So the majority are more inclined to go the other way. To make something useful of their life. In the end, I'm proposing an examination of our limitations in order to gain insight into other aspects of our lives. Yes, a strange concept. Utterly repugnant, at least to my natural way of thinking. But it's there to be thought of and I thought it. No crime in that Want to know about God? Then you should dive into theology. Evolution? Devour Darwinism. But existence applies to all things equally. So one does not need any in depth knowledge of these other matters to ruminate upon the subject. And if I'm being accused of using wordplay then we can disregard a lot of the studies into existentialism while we're at it (I'm assuming from what little I saw from wikipedia regarding the difference between "something" and a specific name for a thing idk).

It was a sarcastic admission. I don't need to proselytize, because I'm quite secure about my position. People who peddle their view with passion do so because they are rather insecure. If I'm fairly sure the sun will rise the next morning (barring any catastrophe) I don't need to shout it from the rooftops. I come onto forums to gauge reactions but also to stimulate my mind. While you probably haven't taken anything from this, I have actually been able to advance my inquiry that much more, so thank you. And you all ignore a lot of my more interesting premises and instead choose to try and attack anything else that can be attacked. Like I said before, poke holes but not the same old holes. I guess you could say my arrogance stems from being rather untouched in these debates, at least concerning the more interesting things I've come up with. In all forums. You chose to try and place this God thing upon me because it was the only way you knew how to play this game. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, but if you feel as if you've resoundingly countered every point I've offered up, then take satisfaction in that and move on. I'm sorry but I've had to defend from all sides so I lose track. All of my logic is faulty or just on one point? And if it's just one point of failure, please remind me which one? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that an attempt to convert someone to Christianity? How would I do that if my inquiry doesn't depend on any one definition (or a definition for that matter) of God? And why would I do that if I don't believe in God? Is this you trying to wish me into being a theist again? I've had a bit of time to think further on this and it actually reminded me of something I had put down on paper quite a few years ago. It was to do with a small inquiry into the relationship between chance and fate which was one of the things that eventually lead me to investigate the structure of existence in general. It read something like this: If you have no choice but to play the game, is it chance that the ball might land either red or black, or fate that the ball will land either red or black? I think I came to the conclusion that chance displayed a general elasticity and as a result, wasn't true chance, true chaotic chance. Or something or other. Thank you for your input in this thread. It's stuff like this that really helps me to reinforce my inquiry/system. Feel free to reach out if you're bored and you want to work on this with me. It's a rather lonely path this inquiry. Ah yes, the logical disconnect between science to God, God to science. I think that was part of the reason why I said that it was like fighting apples with oranges - there was no compatibility between the two. Thank you for refreshing my memory.

No it was rather the same reaction as here. They objected but couldn't quite pinpoint why they objected.

No, see you're cherry picking again. trying to muddy the waters. I'll have none of it "Answers beyond reach" refers to my my inquiry broadly. The leap of faith applies to this question - given that the structures I mention are present in all aspects of observed life, can we say that structure does not apply to our circumstances? If not, then we are essentially saying we are a special case, that this reality is special. Also see my use of numbers and the structure of "collections" to represent my proposed model of existence. I rather think it does give more than just "you need to believe in unicorns because I say so". I'm not making up observable structures of things nor am I inventing the act of substituting numbers to model things in life. It's something children do subconsciously before they learn 1 + 1. Lol you've got some sass, I'll give you that. I don't care to define God. Doesn't interest me. However, I'm still waiting for you to pick apart some of my stuff that you've ignored. Still waiting. No seriously, though, that's why I go onto forums every now and then. To get people to pick things apart. You're in good company because I've been waiting forever. Ironically enough, this was my attempt to inject some rationality into religious discussions. It didn't go down well with the theists I presented it to. Then again rationality and reason are not things some theists understand. I once had a lady try to tell me that if she gave car keys to her drunk friend, her friend would get done for DUI and not her, hence absolving her of any culpability. I said, well you wouldn't get done for DUI, but if they died you would bear some onus. This was in response to my interjection that God did bear some culpability for both our good and our sins if God did indeed create us piece by piece, impulse by impulse. Thank you for the link.

That's an interesting one. It kind of aligns with my thoughts about time and existence - that everything is already in existence at once. Every possible iteration of our lives, our universe, timelines all already in existence, and what we perceive as being the present is just a sequential pointer of sorts. But just because something is, and given enough time will be, doesn't quite go to explaining why it exists at all. But give me a bit of time to look it up properly. Perhaps I'm missing a subtlety here that isn't quite registering at the moment, and thank you for alerting me to it. Precisely, and yes from our logical perspective which is the only tool I have. If I have to assume that God transcends logic then I'm going to have to accept the theist proposition that "God is magic etc". But if they claim that God learns and thinks and desires outcomes, then some part of God must be posited within our own realm. Within the limitations of a being that thinks and learns and desires an outcome etc. And there it is. Grammatical correction. I was only joking when I put spelling into the list of potential attacks against me but there you go. Murphy's law indeed hahah If you think it's false then I accept that. But what I said is similar to dimreepr's comment about a baby eventually moving on from why to how. Yes, I do keep peddling it. In a forum thread. That I created. And you entered. And are free to leave. In all seriousness though, you'd be part of the 99.99% of people that reacted the same way. If you read over my responses then you might have picked out the "structure" of which I mention over and over again. To me a game is merely a structure that binds rules together, of which people (players) abide by. Nothing more, nothing less. A game can have serious consequences if that is what the game calls for (and don't get me started about bureaucrats making decisions that destroys lives thousands of miles away - if that's not a sick game I don't know what is). But I can readily see where you are coming from with that. What, in your experience, has been the Catholic church's explanation for evolution? Is it that God allowed for evolution to occur, or something such? I'm touched that you are concerned with how people perceive me. I pay it no mind. I wondered that for a while too. But if my ideas were really bunk then they would elicit more response, especially my more intriguing ideas. Like outright abuse, counter arguments, general reasons why they feel I'm wrong. At least one measured opinion. But they remain absolutely untouched. So far they have done as you have. Say I'm full of it but can't pinpoint the precise reason.

But I can infer based on your responses. I never affirmed the existence of God, merely invited people to, for a moment, entertain the prospect. But it seemed business as usual, using all the things I've seen used against theists in forums. Business as usual it seemed to me. And as I've confirmed before, your responses are fairly similar to other forums, other people. Which is why I say that people within this debate are comfortable in their own lanes. It's as if people on both sides don't know any other way but to debate in the same manner they always have. Same war, same weapons. That those weapons don't apply to my inquiry and why that still isn't picked up upon is a troubling sign. Yes, I've asserted based on observations of structures that can be apprehended in all aspects of life and pieced them together into a system. Like I said before, there is still a leap of faith to be had, but rather smaller than from unicorns and such. I'll point out that your above comment was in response to my comment of "us being special" which in turn was the leap of faith I refer to earlier. Please refrain from cherry picking as not only does it waste my time but yours as well. Agreed. However, I don't think that this is the only universe in existence. Not sure if you saw my earlier post but I will try to be succinct. If infinity is true, and there is no such thing as non-existence (in that even a vacuum or void is still something, hence there is still existence), then we can use numbers to represent my model of existence. We can see that a system of rules needs a structure of sorts in order to hold it together. It's the basic premise of a collection, in that a collection of things is a smaller subset of a larger set of things. If we use numbers, then this universe is merely one such subset from the grander infinite set of numbers. Even if we don't think there are other universes existing side by side with ours, the larger subset of numbers still represents another "universe" or plane of existence. I absolutely agree. Which brings to mind an interesting question which I may present in another thread. I do get that. Which is why I thought it strange you had a section for religion, given that if we can't test for God then we might necessarily have to delve into philosophy? Or is this particular section of the forum here to assert the usual arguments against God only? Not a sarcastic question. Just genuinely wishing to know the custom here as I'm new. This is a really great point and one that never occurred to me. Personally, I agree that there are differing degrees of intelligence but the one defining factor (other than our perceived higher intellect) is a matter of restraint. That is, the ability to refrain from a certain course of action, at least when it comes to base urges like eating something when hungry etc. Don't quote me on this though. I haven't explored this idea fully.

I have been told that I am arrogant. And I have been told to behave myself in order to get my message across by acquaintances. But you must understand that being ignored forum after forum without having my more interesting ideas even being mentioned or contradicted is frustrating for me as well. In terms of my observations of structures, numbers, infinity and whatnot, even a simple I agree or I disagree would be welcome. But nothing but radio silence. Forum after forum. For many years. That in itself tells me something.

I agree. The human mind can be many things though. It's quite simple. If presented with a small pebble and an immovable boulder, the human will always go for the pebble eventually. And will learn to stay with the pebble. I'm not quite sure why you're fighting me on something as simple as this? There's really no need for this kind of comment. It adds nothing. If you're not upset then I'm not sure why you would inject something like this into the discussion?

And what I'm proposing is that there can be no evidence of what I speak of (frustratingly convenient, yes I know). Rather like a virtual avatar in a virtual world not being able to access the computer hardware upon which it is being hosted. If they've been programmed sufficiently then they can surmise it (absolute free will of thought), but never actually prove it. We might program them to alter the programming language (ie. their own dna), but never the hardware. If I wished to make a world and observe its inhabitants in their most natural state (as most scientific observers wish to observe beasts in their natural habitat, creepy animal cameras and such), I'd make the container as unnoticeable as possible. Out of reach, or at least impenetrable, so they turn their attentions to the other things inside the container. What I'm proposing is a mere inquiry, of no practical use other than to possibly place things into perspective. Nevertheless, it still stands - science, theology, philosophy etc. may be able to answer everything except why anything exists at all. Again, we can argue about evidence and lack thereof, but what I'm proposing transcends manmade rule based systems that were put in place to keep order. It is a consideration of the fact of existence, something that cannot be denied by atheists or theists alike. And philosophy can't render any hard evidence either. So I'm proposing we take science and combine it with philosophy. I know very few things for sure in this life, but the one thing I have observed is that all things seek a balance of sorts. Hell, even existence itself is a perfect balance. I don't think we will find the answer (or at least pointing in the right direction) by going our separate ways. We need a rather balanced approach. Agreed. The one thing I did actually do was spend a brief amount of time researching the punctuation mistakes in the Old Testament, as if the whole thing had been copy and pasted over the years. As I've said before I am speculating on God based on the tools I have in front of me. I don't care either way, but if theists insist on saying that God can do things, then I will insist that God must play by the rules of existence like us. The only thing I know for sure is that I exist. But I really don't wish to go into absolute truths etc. here.

That's just it though. Our human mind is trained to ignore things that cannot be proven or are useless. Like infinity. It's acknowledged in science maths etc, but you can't really do much with it, so it's just there. In plain sight. Ignoring the possibility of God means ignoring what people believe. How can we possibly advance the stalemate if we don't compromise? I certainly do believe in some cases that rules were made by man to justify the fact that we can't explain everything. That we are afraid of the chaos. Systems of rules made by man are put in place to limit that which we dare not or cannot explain. We're afraid of the chaos. So we put our own fences up. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, I'm getting the sense (as I've gotten with all forums) that you're all quite good at forum debating. That is, cherry-picking my little mistakes and attacking them, all the while ignoring my comments regarding observable structures, my numerical application of existence etc. Which, by the way, is what I'm here to get opinions on. I'm here for you to poke holes, but the holes you're poking are the same old holes. That is, God cannot be proven, this is not a formal scientific theory, I made a spelling mistake etc. By all means, continue poking holes. But try to impress me with something new. That's what I'm here for. To advance my inquiry, pick up on things I may not have thought of. NOT regarding the existence of God or any derivative arguments for or against. At the risk of repeating... science vs God is a game, it's a stage and we're all actors playing our parts. We've been enacting this play for many years now, but never have paused to question the stage which allows us to do so in the first place due to our relative position within this stage. I'm not here to enact the same old play. I want to take the stage apart.

What I'm merely suggesting is that if there is a God, then God is subject to the limitations that existence imposes, one of which is that non-existence is not allowable. I don't doubt that man has created many a god to suit their whims. I don't care though. This potentially supersedes any such God. I looked up the definition of theory and it seems to suggest a supposition or system of ideas used to explain something else? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Since this thread was hijacked I'm rather confused as to what everyone is referring to, the separation of existence or the existence of God? If I wasn't clear, I don't care either way about whether God exists or not. It doesn't really matter to my enquiry. If you're referring to the existence of God, I agree. there is a logical disconnect between what we can definitively prove and the existence of God. A leap of faith if you will. If you're referring to my suggestion that there is a separate layer of existence which allows all to be apprehended (including any possible God), then perhaps, for some it is the same leap. This is the dilemma though - to be able to say that there are commonly observable structures that are repeated within observable life, repeated over and over again, but that particular structure doesn't apply to our situation... because we are special. If you're not willing to make this leap, then I accept that. Rather similar to saying that God doesn't exist because we can't prove it, even though there are things out there we can't definitively prove, and yet we assume them into equations and such. I dislike delving into formal logic because the whole thing is rather circular. Like playing a game of rock, paper, scissors, or Pokemon. I'm not really assuming things about God. What I'm doing is using whatever language that theists use to describe God (like God does this and God does that and God wants this) and applying an objectively observed structure onto God, using God's perceived actions as the basis for the application. Of course, this doesn't stop the most extreme religious advocates from using the trump card, "because God magic", but at least for the more reasonable, it might allow them to pause and think. I rather think it is vital to my inquiry, and not at all possible to exclude. It is a part of the game, as is science and just about everything else imaginable. We all have a part to play in this game, this machine, and we're all playing it to perfection I believe. I'm not really forced to explain anything. As I've said, I don't care either way whether God exists or not. But if theists wish to say that God is able to do these things, my inquiry can put those things into perspective without disregarding their beliefs outright. I'll repeat what I said above. If you're referring to my suggestion that there is a separate layer of existence which allows all to be apprehended (including any possible God), then perhaps, for some it is the same leap. This is the dilemma though - to be able to say that there are commonly observable structures that are repeated within observable life, repeated over and over again, but that particular structure doesn't apply to our situation... because we are special. If you're not willing to make this leap, then I accept that.

I don't disagree with this at all. Whether evolution or creationism, if we wish to know about our specific creation then science is our best bet. But I don't think science will be able to answer the question of why we exist at all. As I said numerous times, there is a subtle difference between who/how we were created and why anything exists at all. All of my comments before the thread was hijacked The title of my thread does say "God". I accept a may have insulted a few people by suggesting that the accumulation of wisdom was redundant. I did not mean to imply that. Everyone must play the game, including me. But it doesn't hurt to wonder what the game is every now and then. It gives perspective on things. This is basically what I did. Numbers can be used to represent things in life, right? So I used them to represent the broadest tenet of my system. There's no denying that the simplest concepts/things in life are usually the most powerful. So that's where I started, existence (as derived from my observation of infinity) becomes this base starting point. The one thing I'm saying even God (if it exists) must wonder. Back to my convo with dimreepr. Why is the base question. But every time I go onto a forum, people give me "why not" or "why this". I just want "why". In other words, I'm asking for "1". Everyone is giving me 2, 4, 9, 100, 1000 etc. I can explain these by saying 2 is the sum of 1 +1 or 100 is the sum of either 50 + 50 or 75 + 25. But I'm asking whether someone can explain 1 without going into fractions. So, 1 is existence in my system, and any subsequent number is a derivative of the base number, the most powerful. If we ever get into it more you'll see I use this structure over and over again. 1 is the "why" and all other numbers are "why *****". If you'll notice, the more complex numbers we get, the further away from 1 we get ie. my initial inquiry. I initially began this inquiry as a way to counter those extremist theists because I admit, they got on my nerves. Little did I realize I would be taking myself down a peg or two in the process. I am the first to admit, my theories are utterly repugnant to my own senses. They go against the way I naturally think. But I found that when I did begin to develop this more, I saw the world in a rather different way. And I can't unsee it now. For this reason, I acknowledge these theories probably won't take to the majority of human beings. But if I may interject some intuition here (please don't crucify me), if there is more to our existence than just evolution, what better way to design the human race than to naturally reject such speculations about the cage we inhabit? It would ensure the caged subject doesn't entertain any ides of breaking out. At the very least it might make for a good fiction novel!

Agreed. Personally I don't much care either way. I rather get the feeling that you think I'm a theist in disguise? You keep talking about my gods when I've made it very clear I am ambivalent about any God's existence. My writings here take into account the possibility of God. They don't affirm it. I'm not quite sure how you didn't get that. If you could point my mistake of communication out I'd happily take any constructive criticism on board? Very true. Apologies for jumping to conclusions. But all we can do is assume with theories about God, no? I'm not going to deny there needs be a leap of faith with my system, but it is not a leap from, say, a unicorn. It's more taking commonly perceived structures (both tangible and intangible) and applying them to the possibility of God, using the same language that theists use (that is, God does this, God wants that etc). It's really to show theists a more reasonable approach to God. Baby steps. Because they eventually learn their limitations. Rather like the rat in the cage perhaps? Apologies. As I've said before, I am largely ignorant of such things.

Being that the only thing I know for sure is that I exist, I've come to the conclusion that it would be arrogant of me to think that questions of God could be explained away by our own devices, especially considering we don't know everything (yet) and there are obviously things in existence that we did not have a hand in creating. I don't have any Gods. Gods or not, my inquiry still stands. Although I do tend toward more a mechanism if we are talking about creation of universes etc. And there is a divide between those who believe that God exists and those that don't. I mentioned this in reddit but I'm not a fan of complicated logical formalism. I find a lot of atheists use it to muddy the waters, or at least tie up the debate. And anyone that knows formal debate knows its more about winning rather than getting to the truth of things. Look, I can see you're getting a bit upset with my ramblings. It's a common reaction that I get, from both sides of the debate. If you're not at all up for drinking my kool aid then all respect to you hahaha And all derivatives of simply "why" like "why does water run this way", including our attempts to explain stuff (like Occam's razor) are still all subsets of "why". I don't wish to play the game as the game wishes to play the game. I want to know, what is the game. But truth be told, its a hopeless inquiry. A waste of time by any standard. Even I can see that. I just thought it rather interesting is all. This has been great discussion guys! A lot better quality than reddit I must say. I have a plane to catch and then gonna catch up on some snoozes. I'll be away for a few days but would love to pick up again later (if anyone bothers to do so lol).

I guess then what I'm asking is simply "why". I do believe the simplest things are among the hardest to explain away. Simplest concepts are the most powerful.

Because that would be (I think) silly. As I said, my path of enquiry is based on speculations about infinity. Which is half there, half not An observation of what it entails it terms of our existence, its importance etc. Again, all speculation. But an attempt to logic my way through. All in all, this is an attempt to bridge the divide between God and science. Find some common ground.

So, this is something that I've railed against on reddit to no avail. I don't believe an atheist can demand scientific proof of God any more than a theist can say God is all the proof I need of science. I can't remember precisely the argument that I made, just that the two were incompatible. There was a logical disconnect. But isn't science the observation of phenomena and a prediction made from observed patterns anyway? All I'm doing is taking my observations of things and applying them to other things. How to distinguish between how something chooses to behave over how they are able to behave? Great question actually. Obviously I can't know anything for sure. But if I am to assume God created us then God is able to touch the material world in some manner. I'm going to get slightly theological if I may, but if God created us then all that we are must be, at least, a part of God (but perhaps not its entirety). "Click-the-fingers" type creation isn't for me, so I'm going to assume that God can get its hands dirty in earthly material to make stuff. That essentially posits God within some material plane of existence. Not necessarily ours, but an existence of some type. Also, if God chose to create us, then it shows God has a desire, a want to do things. That places God on our level of wanting things etc. In short, if God exists, then it exists. Suffice to say, if I am right about existence being a whole 'nother thing, then it would stand to reason that existence imposes its rules upon God as equally as upon humanity. And no one thing can "be" another thing. That would go against the rules of our very existence. And it seems likely to me. Because if God is a thinking, desiring, doing being, then God is a player, not the game.

Nope. As I said, I can't really discount anything. I'm just looking for another path of enquiry considering we are at a stalemate in this God vs Science debate. I'm not saying I'm right. I mean, aren't we all throwing theories around in this debate? But if I am right, then all other beliefs can fit into my system. If I'm right. Big emphasis on the if. Imaginary friend? You mean my separation of existence from all else? Believe me, I've often wondered whether I'm seeing something that I'm not for many years. But I don't think so. It just feels right to me. I'm not going to try and explain the rabbit hole that I went down here. Suffice to say, it all stems from infinity and an attempted examination of thereof. I told myself years ago that if I wanted to examine this, I had to start with something at least semi-plausible. And infinity is one of those things that does and doesn't exist, if you know what I mean. That is essentially my point, hence the title of my post. The stage doesn't care. It doesn't want for anything. It doesn't desire an outcome. But if God exists, and God is a thinking doing being then God is not the stage.

Agreed. But take out the puddle (which is us in the analogy??) and you still have the sun, the air, the hole etc? What I'm trying to get at through all my ramblings is that humanity are not important to the equation. I'm reducing humanity (and God if it exists) to just another "thing" that exists. On equal measure to a rock or a tree or Earth even. Plus, it doesn't preclude the possibility that something could quite as easily have created the Earth or this universe without humanity. Whether we are here or not doesn't preclude the possibility that the universe was made as a container for specifically other things (rocks, trees, etc), much like we would make a sealed terrarium. This is something I'm more inclined to believe as well.

On the contrary, I place equal importance on science as I do theology. As I would individual cogs in a machine. The machine needs the cogs in order to run, and without the machine the cogs wouldn't be able to operate in a consistent manner, an isolated environment. All cogs necessarily work with one another in order to make the machine go. I don't really consider myself a creationist, although I don't necessarily disagree with the postulation that we were created by a sentient being. I don't really care either way. And theologians can equally be attributed to "accumulating knowledge" in the same way. I've argued against my fair share who have tried to use theology against my very simple logic. My view is one doesn't need extensive knowledge in either field in order to think about the origins of our existence because I'm separating existence from questions of our specific creation. My view of separating the fabric of existence from both sides of the debate essentially equalizes them. Makes science and religion actors upon a stage, players within a game (or at least ways to play the game). My inquiry is more toward the game itself.

Thank you for clueing me into this Anthropic principle. I had never heard of it until now. I'm assuming the principle applies not just for the observer within but the observer who created the container? That the compatibility of the world which contains the inhabitant observers is likely (at least partially) compatible for its creator? I'm also assuming the author is suggesting that our world is not necessarily made for us? Perhaps not. But it might possibly have been made for the things that subsequently exist within it, whether or not humans came along or not. The world may not have been made for the puddle alone, but what of the combination of the puddle, the sun, the air, the hole etc? As I said before, there is a very subtle difference between the question of who created us and why anything exists at all, which I think brings the question of existence onto another level that transcends questions of God. One either sees it or doesn't. It's hard to grasp, like tendrils of smoke. This is something that even Richard Dawkins can't see, and I'm rather surprised that he would waste his energy on such an impassioned argument against God. Or maybe it's no surprise. Absolutely no offence to those who dedicate their lives to the accumulation of knowledge, it takes skill and dedication, but I believe that is a trap unto itself. Take a rat in a cage for instance. If you wanted to observe the extent of its intellectual behaviour, you would inevitably place all manner of things inside the cage to distract it from the fact that it is simply a rat in a cage. Distract it and it won't go gnawing on the cage. Eventually, it rather forgets its just a rat in a cage. But one of the keys to its very origin of existence, is the cage itself. The rest is a distraction. A cunning misdirection.

Interestingly enough, it was from basic maths that I began my observations. If one doesn't assume that this universe is the only universe in existence, then it means there are different universes each with their own different rules. Rules cannot operate in a vacuum. There needs to be a structure in place to enforce those rules, rules of physics, logic etc. In other words there needs to be a container that can isolate our universe's set of rules from all the others. If we substitute each possible basic number with each thing that exists, we would have an endless set of numbers floating around. That is, if one believes existence to be infinite. Our universe then, would be a subset of those numbers, other universes would be other subsets. Note that there can be no largest subset of numbers, because infinity. And as I said before, God is a player, not the game. The game, it would seem, is infinity.

I whole-heartedly agree. That is the one of the reasons why people turn to religion - for comfort. The hubris of man though, is that what we think we know might not necessarily be what actually is. I'm glad at least someone finds it intriguing. I posted the same on reddit and after replying back to everyone's arguments against, I get the same result as I ever did - being ignored. But that is the foundation of my theory. Rather than searching for hidden treasures and Golden Arks, I rather believe the keys to our existence are hidden in plain sight. In the mundane. My confidence in my findings is underpinned by the fact that my system is grounded in a combination of faith, intuition, logic and empirical observation (of the nature of structures in general). I never discount somebody's belief in God because their belief system can still fit within mine.

In short, yes. I believe if God exists then God is also subject to the rules of existence in general. So rather than asking the question, what is God, I'm making the inquiry what is existence? Because I do think there is a very very subtle difference between the purpose/intent for which we were made (ie. God made us) and why we exist at all (which includes why anything including God exists at all). With that kind of question we're getting into theology/morality. To be honest I don't know all that much about that beyond the average person. I can't comment on why God should be this or that because I believe we're not really meant to know. I think part of the purpose of life is wondering about these questions in the first place. If we're going to ask that question, then we could go around in circles and ask what is the point of anything really. It took me many years to wrap my head around existence as a separate thing. I find it helpful to look at it as a structure. Some examples below, keep in mind, infinity when applying these structures. A painting: Life is a painting and all its constituents are the brushstrokes. So existence is the canvas. Paint still retains its molecular structure on its own, but a painting (life) doesn't come into being unless the paint hits a canvas. A game: Life is a game, and everything we are and do is how we play the game. If God is a sentient being with wants and desires, then God is playing the game too. The structure of a game is such that the players can never transcend the game while they are playing the game, and the game doesn't play itself. It is merely a structure. The question then becomes, what is the game? A virtual world: There are some similarities to Godly creation and a programmer creating a virtual world. I've heard it said that if God exists then we would not be able to comprehend God in its true form. So God, therefore, has to appear to us in a material form we would understand. The same applies to a virtual world. If a programmer were to try and speak to their creations outright, they wouldn't be able to. So the only way you can manipulate/communicate with that virtual world is through programming language. Also, I think if the virtual inhabitants gained some kind of sentience, it would be relative to that virtual world. That is, we would have no idea that they had gained sentience, only that we programmed them to act as they are. But for all we know, they are essentially sentient beings within their own world. This also means that even though they are intelligent and sentient, they have no way of actually touching the fabric of their own existence, that is, the computer hardware. Thoughts anyone?