Opinions on God?

[EdEarl]

What makes you think that I believe humans and their activity is outside nature? IMO the Universe is natural.

[Damateur]

On 8/31/2017 at 11:53 AM, tar said:

Damateur,

Within whose consciousness would these failed universes manifest.  That is, what would be the criteria used to label one universe viable and another not viable, and who would make the judgement?

Regards, TAR

   Within no consciousness. No one would make a judgement. Just as when a firework fails to ignite or a seed fails to germinate or a tornado fails to form, no one is needed to recognize the failure - it just is. Humans are egocentric enough that we imagine that a consciousness is needed to watch the universe(s) but this is not true. The universe functions just fine without an observing consciousness.

   The only criteria would be: did a universe form? Did that strength and ratio of fundamental forces allow for the initial energy to form particles (or some equivalent) which then form more complex structures - atoms, molecules and on up in our universe - or were the forces so unstable as to prevent the creation of matter (or some equivalent)? Reduce the strength of the electromagnetic force beyond a certain point and atoms and molecules would not form. Increase gravity and/or dark matter enough and, soon after particles form, that universe experiences the Big Crunch. There is an incredibly large number of bad combinations - maybe even a near-infinite number. Obviously there is at least one viable combination for the strength and ratio of fundamental forces as demonstrated by our universe.

[tar]

8 minutes ago, Damateur said:

   Within no consciousness. No one would make a judgement. Just as when a firework fails to ignite or a seed fails to germinate or a tornado fails to form, no one is needed to recognize the failure - it just is. Humans are egocentric enough that we imagine that a consciousness is needed to watch the universe(s) but this is not true. The universe functions just fine without an observing consciousness.

   The only criteria would be: did a universe form? Did that strength and ratio of fundamental forces allow for the initial energy to form particles (or some equivalent) which then form more complex structures - atoms, molecules and on up in our universe - or were the forces so unstable as to prevent the creation of matter (or some equivalent)? Reduce the strength of the electromagnetic force beyond a certain point and atoms and molecules would not form. Increase gravity and/or dark matter enough and, soon after particles form, that universe experiences the Big Crunch. There is an incredibly large number of bad combinations - maybe even a near-infinite number. Obviously there is at least one viable combination for the strength and ratio of fundamental forces as demonstrated by our universe.

Still, you are not telling me in whose mind these bad combinations are taking place.  If they are indeed bad combinations of forces to where they would not "work" then they would never exist in such a combination.  That is, who is doing these trials, and with what raw materials are the trials being made.  You talk like some god is in the lab with various containers of fundamental forces, measuring out various combos.  I don't think that is how it works.   I think reality is something somewhat more substantial than an equation.

Regards, TAR 

[Damateur]

17 minutes ago, tar said:

Still, you are not telling me in whose mind these bad combinations are taking place.  If they are indeed bad combinations of forces to where they would not "work" then they would never exist in such a combination.  That is, who is doing these trials, and with what raw materials are the trials being made.  You talk like some god is in the lab with various containers of fundamental forces, measuring out various combos.  I don't think that is how it works.   I think reality is something somewhat more substantial than an equation.

Regards, TAR 

   Sorry, I sometimes leave parts out that seem obvious to me.

   We only think of one universe (our own) existing but we have no way of knowing for certain if that is the case. The concept of the "fine-tuned universe" is usually referenced when someone is trying to claim a creator exists but I've approached it in a different manner. If our universe is not "fine-tuned" then what does that indicate (if anything)? I've heard it proposed that 'absolute nothing' would be unstable and that is what caused our universe to be created. If reality is infinite then the same event (whether absolute nothingness decaying into something or whether some other cause) that spawned our universe could have spawned an infinity of universes. Not just universes with the "fine-tuning" our universe has but every possible combination of strength and ratio of fundamental forces.

   While we look at the sun and normally only think of it emitting visible light, once you understand that there is more to the EM spectrum, you would consider that the sun could be emitting more than just the visible light (as it does). There is often more to reality than we see and we can use what we do see as clues to that 'more'. So is the supposed "fine-tuning" just that, or is it evidence that there are potential parallel universes that are much weirder than we can speculate? I find it difficult to accept that our universe really is "fine-tuned" - the idea is too egocentric on our part.

  And from there we go on to my previous post. Sorry about not presenting this seed concept first.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Damateur

[tar]

11 hours ago, Damateur said:

   Sorry, I sometimes leave parts out that seem obvious to me.

   We only think of one universe (our own) existing but we have no way of knowing for certain if that is the case. The concept of the "fine-tuned universe" is usually referenced when someone is trying to claim a creator exists but I've approached it in a different manner. If our universe is not "fine-tuned" then what does that indicate (if anything)? I've heard it proposed that 'absolute nothing' would be unstable and that is what caused our universe to be created. If reality is infinite then the same event (whether absolute nothingness decaying into something or whether some other cause) that spawned our universe could have spawned an infinity of universes. Not just universes with the "fine-tuning" our universe has but every possible combination of strength and ratio of fundamental forces.

   While we look at the sun and normally only think of it emitting visible light, once you understand that there is more to the EM spectrum, you would consider that the sun could be emitting more than just the visible light (as it does). There is often more to reality than we see and we can use what we do see as clues to that 'more'. So is the supposed "fine-tuning" just that, or is it evidence that there are potential parallel universes that are much weirder than we can speculate? I find it difficult to accept that our universe really is "fine-tuned" - the idea is too egocentric on our part.

  And from there we go on to my previous post. Sorry about not presenting this seed concept first.

Never did understand the fine-tuned argument. As a balance of ratios of forces or whatever, it seems silly to propose what it would be like if this or that number were larger or smaller, because it isn't so.  That matter could not form or whatever if the ratios were different. The ratios are what they are, first, not as a consequence of god's choice...since there is no God to chose.  So we come to accidental arrival at the fundamental forces and ratios and such, in your mind, so you posit multiple realities where the ratios are all kinds of different, producing weird and not so weird, working and not working arrangements.  Perhaps, as likely as it is that such varied universes exist, it does not matter to this one.  If there is any connection, cause or effect, collective result or precursor to continuing development of our universe, caused or affected by this other group, then in a sense the others are not separate, but part of a greater reality that is composed of this universe and the others.

So if pi were smaller would circles not close, or if larger overlap themselves?  I am thinking that the ratios are such because they work.  I do not know the cause and reason for the fundamental forces any better than the experts, nor do the experts know why and how gravity works, or the weak force, or the strong force, or electromagnetic forces.  It is all a bit mysterious when it comes to why.   But since it is so, it makes sense to me, that whatever is developed from whatever was.  That there must have been a nothing with a certain potential to become something, or we would not have something to talk about. So the question is, is it guided by itself, or is it guided by an outside agent?

Regards, TAR 

[tar]

But to the OP, my opinion on God comes from a basis in Sunday School and a Christian mother, and my father's parents, religiously founded institutions of learning I attended, and various church services and funerals I have attended throughout my life.  Combined of course with living in a society founded on the basis of religious freedom, where everyone is free to worship god in the manner of their own choosing, not dictated by the government. 

When I was young, everybody believed in God and those that did not were somehow outsiders, and bad people to boot.

Reading about Eastern Religions and majoring in Philosophy in college opened my mind to other ways of looking at the world, other than through the Bible's eyes. Still I had a time period where I understood Jesus' love, not through the words of any priest or door to door pamphlet provider,  or any substance (gave that up in High School) but just felt it in air as I lived and breathed.

I have, over the years considered that what people believe in the way of religion, is mostly community understanding of the cosmos and life and death.  Meaning that the figurative and the literal are joined at the hip.   Standing around the grave of a loved one lost, the words of the priest are not foreign to me, even being an atheist. I do not hear the words literally I hear them figuratively and apply the emotions and thoughts that I understand figuratively to the literal world and the loss of my loved one, and share the emotion and the reality of the situation with those others, standing around the grave.   The words are true, in the sense that others have stood around the grave of their loved ones before, and this is what you say, when confronted with the situation, and you understand, in the same way, and to the same degree as every person ever, that attended a funeral of their loved one.

So God, I think, is our collective label we put on the place.   Real in the sense that the place is real.  Manufactured in the sense that we made up the character, but real again in the sense that God is the agent toward who we turn when considering the place, collectively.  Religion is a collective set of behavioral rules that allow society to function with everybody playing by the same set of rules.

Even atheists and agnostics on this board consider whether god is malevolent or benevolent, meaning only the wondering whether the universe is friendly or an enemy.  Not really a wondering about whether this or that religion has it right.  But people align themselves with others that have the same overall opinion about the place, and this is easier to do in formal settings of church and school and club and organizations, than on a one to one basis, figuring out a stranger's worldview through long conversations and  common experiences.

So I think religion is shorthand for what we each believe our relationship with objective reality should be, anyway, and God is shorthand for what we each believe about the place, anyway.

Regards, TAR

Edited September 2, 2017 by tar

[Bigg’s Boson]

Time dilation

kabbalistic lore holds the metatron as the scribe of history and other sources state he as the voice of God. When we break down meta to (beyond) and tron to(electronic) we may find a more advanced version of the type 1 civilization communication system we call the internet. Being the voice of God specifically states the voice of the whole planetary organism... Just like Israel to Is real  pentacle to atom symbol...All are chosen...

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, Bigg’s Boson said:

When we break down meta to (beyond) and tron to(electronic) we...

When you do that you show your ignorance of the origins of the word electronic.

It comes from the Greek "elektron" ἤλεκτρον meaning amber

Is half of your your Metatron really composed of sticky yellow tree resin?

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Bigg’s Boson said:

When we break down meta to (beyond) and tron to(electronic)

It is a Hebrew word, not Greek. The ultimate etymology isn't clear, but its probably from Latin.

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronname.html

[alchimie]

The True Question is : Why Do you not believe in GOD???? 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, alchimie said:

The True Question is : Why Do you not believe in GOD???? 

That is a very silly question. Because it assumes that the default position is to believe in some random idea. It leads to obvious corollaries like: Why do you not believe in Thor? Why do you not believe in the Easter Bunny? Why do you not believe that the stars are the souls of the dead? Why do you not believe in Santa Clause?

The rational default position is to not believe in something until there is evidence for it. On that basis, I see no reason to believe in Thor, or any other gods.

[Moontanman]

14 hours ago, alchimie said:

The True Question is : Why Do you not believe in GOD???? 

Because there is no testable evidence for god, the default condition is a lack of belief until evidence is presented... 

On 8/31/2017 at 9:28 PM, tar said:

Like for instance?  Anything that would occur following a prayer would by definition be something that would happen naturally as unnatural things simply can't happen.

How about a tea cup knocked off a table and falling to the floor jumping back up on the table and coming back together as it was before it broke? No real reason it can't happen, I'd accept that as a "for instance." 

On 8/31/2017 at 9:28 PM, tar said:

The question would then be, can you petition the lord with prayer, to which one might say no, and another might say yes.

Or one could perhaps posit, that one can communicate with nature and ask it for assistance, and protect it and commune with it, to where you plant a seed and water it and protect the plant from wind and rain and animal and the said plant/nature provides you with sustenance in the way of seed or fruit or leaf, or wood for fire or shelter or weapon.

So everything that happens is evidence of god... kind of a low bar isn't it? 

 

On 8/31/2017 at 9:28 PM, tar said:

I am thinking that nature is very much our friend, as we have evolved along with nature to exist in great number on this Earth.  I think we are no better than, no smarter than, no stronger or larger or more important than nature.  To posit that god is an anthropomorphic thing, a human thing with mind and hands and sexual parts and such, is what has no evidence.  But that the world is greater than us, and that we owe our existence to it, is undeniable.  So when someone says there is no evidence that god exists, one can only be referring to an anthropomorphic god that cannot rationally and naturally exist.  But this is not the  God that people believe in.  People, some people believe in a God that cannot exist, cannot have a place to be, or any physical characteristics that can be beheld by a person in the waking world.  These people are rightly considered delusional.  But others, don't know what God would look like or think like or act like, and just attribute all thing that are to this being.  No magic, no dogma, no stories of turtles or hawks or frogs or stars birthing demigods, or anything that could be falsified.  No science can touch a figurative god.  Can't find it, or kill it, or prove it exists or does not exist.  Except the universe existing, proves that the universe exists, and no thought or knowledge can make the universe go away. No thought or knowledge or act of man can put even the slightest dent in the cosmos.  It is grand, it is immense, we are subordinate to it.  Most of the characteristics a god must have are possessed by the universe.  God, in my estimation is our personification of objective reality.  Done so that we can converse with objective reality.  Call it prayer if you would, but it is only prayer if you think objective reality is listening.

So you simply define god into existence? 

 

On 8/31/2017 at 9:28 PM, tar said:

I think objective reality is listening.  I am an atheist.  So I don't believe in God per se.  The god of the bible is too filled with human emotion to be real.  Humans evolved on this planet and God would not be constrained to breathing oxygen, having babies and needing to eat, sleep, drink, play, hunt, solve problems and make judgements about the world, like humans have to.  Would not have hands and feet and arms and a brain and such, because those thing are just needed to survive on the Earth, and would have no use in another place, that could be conceived of as god's residence...but there was this time I was thinking about how people ask God to prove himself to them by showing another shooting star or some thing that would happen naturally anyway.  I was thinking about how this one guy posting here should ask god to do something really unlikely and tell the board what he was going to ask, before he asked, so we could all witness the rare thing happening on his request...when I noticed I was shoveling 6 inches of snow off my driveway, in the middle of October, in New Jersey, as I mused, I looked up in the sky, and said "Funny guy, funny."

Regards, TAR

Unlikely events happen, not proof of anything but the fact that unlikely events happen... 

[elias_marquez_zoho]

God as the character we see in the Bible or the Qu'ran is absolutely irrational and ridicolous.

 

"God" as some sort of philosophical idea, as Spinoza postulated it... well, you can divagate.

Edited January 25, 2018 by elias_marquez_zoho

[Strange]

19 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

well, you can divagate

I have learned a new word, today. Thanks.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divagate