A God Without Limitations

[Aman Uensis]

Just now, iNow said:

Why not unicorns or the tooth fairy then, since we’re “just looking for another path of enquiry?”

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.

[iNow]

Just now, Aman Uensis said:

Because that would be (I think) silly.

Much like your god(s)

Just now, Aman Uensis said:

Again, all speculation. But an attempt to logic my way through.

If you plan on using logic to bootstrap your faith, then you should abandon the tautologies you seem so partial to

1 minute ago, Aman Uensis said:

All in all, this is an attempt to bridge the divide between God and science. Find some common ground.

There is no divide between science and belief in god(s). It’s all quite well explained using basic psychology and sociology. 

[Aman Uensis]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The fundamental question is, why me?

The fundamental answer is, why not?

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.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

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.

Occum's razor doesn't provide an answer, it just provides a tipping point; why does the water run this way???

[Aman Uensis]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Much like your god(s)

If you plan on using logic to bootstrap your faith, then you should abandon the tautologies you seem so partial to

There is no divide between science and belief in god(s). It’s all quite well explained using basic psychology and sociology. 

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

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Occum's razor doesn't provide an answer, it just provides a tipping point; why does the water run this way???

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).

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

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".

At some point, children go from why to how...

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

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.

This is irrelevant, right? I didn't say I was an atheist, and I didn't demand scientific proof of God. I just said such a test can't be conducted.

 

26 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

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.

Key phrase: "I am going to assume"

So basically this is circular logic. You assume something and then conclude it. Nothing valid is demonstrated.

 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Aman Uensis said:

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

And yet you dismiss the arrogance of explaining god(s) INTO existence using our own devices. Strange hypocrisy, but appreciate you highlighting it. 

1 hour ago, Aman Uensis said:

Look, I can see you're getting a bit upset with my ramblings. It's a common reaction that I get

Much like your imaginary god(s), your perception of me being upset is also imaginary. I really couldn't care much less about you than I do now. 

As already shared, I mostly find you boring. I definitely don't find you upsetting. 

[beecee]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

And both were an accident of evolution.

10 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

This is something I'm more inclined to believe as well.

Which makes any God/deity a superfluous proposition. 

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Only one of which know's or care's, the stage doesn't doesn't need too.

I don't believe I said any different.

[Aman Uensis]

On 4/26/2022 at 4:57 AM, beecee said:

Which makes any God/deity a superfluous proposition.

Agreed. Personally I don't much care either way.

On 4/25/2022 at 9:22 PM, iNow said:

nd yet you dismiss the arrogance of explaining god(s) INTO existence using our own devices. Strange hypocrisy, but appreciate you highlighting it.

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?

On 4/25/2022 at 8:21 PM, swansont said:

This is irrelevant, right? I didn't say I was an atheist, and I didn't demand scientific proof of God. I just said such a test can't be conducted.

Very true. Apologies for jumping to conclusions.

On 4/25/2022 at 8:21 PM, swansont said:

Key phrase: "I am going to assume"

So basically this is circular logic. You assume something and then conclude it. Nothing valid is demonstrated.

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.

On 4/25/2022 at 8:16 PM, dimreepr said:

At some point, children go from why to how...

Because they eventually learn their limitations. Rather like the rat in the cage perhaps?

On 4/25/2022 at 8:07 PM, dimreepr said:

Occum's razor doesn't provide an answer, it just provides a tipping point; why does the water run this way???

Apologies. As I've said before, I am largely ignorant of such things.

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

My writings here take into account the possibility of God.

Which one(s)? 

[Aman Uensis]

On 4/25/2022 at 11:59 AM, iNow said:

If you wish to better understand your “creator,” then science is the single best path to doing so.

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.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which one(s)? 

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.

24 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

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!

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

But I don't think science will be able to answer the question of why we exist at all.

Science doesn't try, it's a question for philosophy.

We know all the Bible's were written by people, all of which describe a different type of God/essence/way of life; it's rather silly to assume the author's were inspired by anything other than the thoughts of man.

So essentially the limits of God are the limits we decide it has.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

But all we can do is assume with theories about God, no?

Yes and no. All we can do is assume, which means that these really aren't theories. 

Quote

 

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.

I think it's the same leap.

 

Quote

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.

It's still a circular argument. You assume things about God and that's what you end up concluding. Sometimes those assumptions are subtle, but they are always there.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

There's no denying that the simplest concepts/things in life are usually the most powerful. So that's where I started, existence

You might be missing the logic of this point, but it’s important for you to be aware that inserting a god or gods into your thinking actually INCREASES the complexity of your position and makes your explanation LESS simple.

It’s a new layer and a new assertion you’re forced to explain, and yet you can’t explain it with anything more than castles made of sand. So… if you truly do value simple concepts and consider them to be most powerful, then you really ought to discard deities from the equation entirely… unless/until hard evidence gives us any good reason to place them there. 

After millennia of trying, nobody has yet come up with any hard evidence (or really any evidence at all) supporting the conjecture that god(s) really do exist. Every. Single. Time… the idea gets any pushback at all, it always seems to come back to a baseless individual faith (which even you have already acknowledged in yourself), some form of specious wish thinking, or mere chance that one happened to be born into it so had exposure or indoctrination as children.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by iNow

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

My writings here take into account the possibility of God. They don't affirm it.

In science, "take into account" means analyzing the evidence. You can remain neutral (null hypothesis) while waiting for such evidence to be presented, but I really don't see how you can consider the possibility of god(s) without any. You don't have to claim god(s) don't exist if you just ignore them until they do something observably god-like.

[Sensei]

On 4/29/2022 at 3:51 PM, Phi for All said:

You don't have to claim god(s) don't exist if you just ignore them until they do something observably god-like.

..like 65 mln years ago.. ? Consider, done..

..it can be repeated..

 

Most people I know, hate their lives..

Today, a 21-year-old medical student (so he claimed), after drinking vodka (>0.5L) told me that he would have killed himself if not his mother..

 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Most people I know, hate their lives..

This is very curious, because most people I know, overwhelmingly love their lives.

[Sensei]

45 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is very curious, because most people I know, overwhelmingly love their lives.

I heard a joke.

People lie.

How do I know?

Because they open their mouth..

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+times+people+lie

"Most people — about 75 % of survey respondents — told zero to two lies per day. Lying comprised 7 % of total communication and almost 90 % of all lies were little white lies.Nov 17, 2021"

"Two hundred times. That's how many times the average person can lie in just one day"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Sensei

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..like 65 mln years ago.. ? Consider, done..

..it can be repeated..

 

Most people I know, hate their lives..

Today, a 21-year-old medical student (so he claimed), after drinking vodka (>0.5L) told me that he would have killed himself if not his mother..

Are you suggesting this as evidence that God hates dinosaurs and loves mothers? 

[Sensei]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you suggesting this as evidence that God hates dinosaurs and loves mothers? 

...WTF? Dinosaurs didn't have mothers? Did they clone themselves?

ps. Or your way of thinking is a way too human for my perception..

ps2. I love dinosaurs! maybe I will reincarnate them, in the future.. who knows.. like humans.. who knows..

 

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Sensei

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

...WTF?

Exactly.

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I heard joke.

People lie.

How do I know?

Because they open their mouth..

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+times+people+lie

"Most people — about 75 % of survey respondents — told zero to two lies per day. Lying comprised 7 % of total communication and almost 90 % of all lies were little white lies.Nov 17, 2021"

"Two hundred times. That's how many times the average person can lie in just one day"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

This works both ways.

[Sensei]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

This works both ways.

Not exactly. It works for humans..

[Aman Uensis]

On 4/29/2022 at 6:55 PM, dimreepr said:

So essentially the limits of God are the limits we decide it has

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. 

On 4/29/2022 at 6:57 PM, swansont said:

Yes and no. All we can do is assume, which means that these really aren't theories.

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.

On 4/29/2022 at 6:57 PM, swansont said:

I think it's the same leap.

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.

On 4/29/2022 at 6:57 PM, swansont said:

It's still a circular argument. You assume things about God and that's what you end up concluding. Sometimes those assumptions are subtle, but they are always there.

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.

On 4/29/2022 at 8:20 PM, iNow said:

You might be missing the logic of this point, but it’s important for you to be aware that inserting a god or gods into your thinking actually INCREASES the complexity of your position and makes your explanation LESS simple.

It’s a new layer and a new assertion you’re forced to explain, and yet you can’t explain it with anything more than castles made of sand. So… if you truly do value simple concepts and consider them to be most powerful, then you really ought to discard deities from the equation entirely… unless/until hard evidence gives us any good reason to place them there.

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.

 

36 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

and yet you can’t explain it with anything more than castles made of sand

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.