The concept of a god

[krash661]

yes ,

i apologize.

you are correct about the person i was responding to,

9/10 i do not pay attention to names, they are irrelevant to me in most cases.

 

so i will apologize again.

Edited May 19, 2013 by krash661

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think PP is trying to show that Einstein's god isn't very different from what most theists believe in. I wouldn't agree. I wouldn't even agree that Einstein was theistic.

 

I don't know exactly what Einstein's god is, but it seems to be one that requires less faith (if any). I have noticed that some people's gods require more faith than others. For example, some gods merely set up the world like a self-sustaining machine, whereas other gods set up the world and actively interfere with it on the behalf of those they like. The former makes fewer assumptions and requires less faith. This brings up another issue, namely the malleability of the word itself. As one makes their god more realistic, they tend to make it less god-like.

A paraphrase of Kant- "[Faith is belief without reason]"

[krash661]

photon propeller,

 

I'm one step away from going through every single post you have made and giving you negative points.

second warning.

 

if you do not like the fact that humanity existed before religion,

then take that up with god.

quit giving me negative points for it.

i notice that's when the negatives points come in, when i mention that.

 

and i maybe wrong about you doing it.

either way.

who ever it is.

grow up.

Edited May 19, 2013 by krash661

[MonDie]

tell me the difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist

 

They would have to define "existence" first.

As I mentioned elsewhere, we don't directly percieve that things exist, but we do directly percieve that our world has order. It is our explanations for this order, our theories, that introduce the idea of things "existing." But what does "existence" even mean? If "existence" is inextricably intertwined with participation in the order of the world, then being non-participatory is the same as being non-existent.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Popcorn Sutton]

But god could have participated in the creation of everything and simply went afk, which would mean that god exists for us when god participates, but there is no definitive evidence that he has participated at all unless you choose to believe citations about the miracles one was able to perform that probably came from a bunch of mystics. I personally find peace in the theory that we are simulated. It seems to be the most plausible answer to the question. My line of research suggests that one day we will be god and our simulations will be contemplating our existence.

[krash661]

They would have to define "existence" first.

As I mentioned elsewhere, we don't directly percieve that things exist, but we do directly percieve that our world has order. It is our explanations for this order, our theories, that introduce the idea of things "existing." But what does "existence" even mean? If "existence" is inextricably intertwined with participation in the order of the world, then being non-participatory is the same as being non-existent.

yeah, i apologize.

 

that was directed to photon propeller

tell the me the difference,

simple.

[Moontanman]

He is not referring to humanity. The lawful harmony of the world he refers to is the physical laws of nature and the complex association by which they are governed. Simply put, and my main point, laws of such harmony and predetermination reflect a supreme lawmaker. That is what all Deists believe. Nature is self evident of God.

 

No the laws of such harmony do not reflect a creator, that is a logical fallacy, the assertion that the laws of nature point to a creator is not proof of anything but the laws of nature. If the laws of nature were different things would be different. it is not proof or even suggestive of a god.

 

We are here because the laws of nature allow it, if the laws of nature were different we would not be here to debate the issue. Please show some empirical evidence, existence is not evidence of anything but existence. Quoting authority figures is meaningless, and the world around us is easily explained by natural means.

 

Nature is not self evidence of god, naturalistic causes explain the life and the universe quite well with no need of god.

[MonDie]

photon propeller,

 

I'm one step away from going through every single post you have made and giving you negative points.

second warning.

 

You were responding to Popcorn Sutton, not Photon Propeller.

 

I know the existence question wasn't aimed at me, but I thought I would point out that "existence" must be defined before someone can say a non-participatory thing is nonetheless existent.

 

---

 

But god could have participated in the creation of everything and simply went afk, which would mean that god exists for us when god participates

 

Photon Propeller argues that his god put in place the laws of the universe, including the causal relationships. This sets his god apart from our ordered world, placing it somewhere beyond. This results in a paradox. PP is describing creation as an act of God even though his god isn't part of the action (i.e. causality, time, etc.)

Edited May 19, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Popcorn Sutton]

I doubt that that post was aimed at me.

 

I actually posted this morning in another thread about gaps in time (subjective) that relates to this participation view of existence. It's not an easy question to answer. It's the equivalence to the nonlocality conundrum. I don't see china, therefor china is nonexistent. I don't know any possible way of coming up with a clear argument for existence without observation.

[Moontanman]

Is the belief of a god important? does it really matter if a person believes in a higher power or not? How does that belief impact our world? Why should people debate whether or not god exists, can't it be a simple case of 'live and let live'?

 

 

This thread is not about the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods, please read the OP above, Several of us have allowed this thread to go off topic. I suggest a moderator split out the off topic posts....

[MonDie]

This thread is not about the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods, please read the OP above, Several of us have allowed this thread to go off topic. I suggest a moderator split out the off topic posts....

 

I guess, but why did they name the thread "The concept of a god" if the actual topic was "Is (dis)belief in God important?"

 

 

I doubt that that post was aimed at me.

 

You're probably right. The way the discussion flowed made it look like he was mistaking you for PP.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[photon propeller]

No the laws of such harmony do not reflect a creator, that is a logical fallacy, the assertion that the laws of nature point to a creator is not proof of anything but the laws of nature. If the laws of nature were different things would be different. it is not proof or even suggestive of a god.

 

We are here because the laws of nature allow it, if the laws of nature were different we would not be here to debate the issue. Please show some empirical evidence, existence is not evidence of anything but existence. Quoting authority figures is meaningless, and the world around us is easily explained by natural means.

 

Nature is not self evidence of god, naturalistic causes explain the life and the universe quite well with no need of god.

I told you the fact that physical constants rule nature and those constants have scale, intensity, amplitude, symmetry, harmony, etc. is what necessitates a rule maker. I showed you an example of the energy density constant but you were oblivious to its existence. Natural law has a cause just like any effect does. The origin of that cause is what we disagree on. I say it is the supreme lawmaker, your position is not to have one other than to deny a master.

[krash661]

The origin of that cause is what we disagree on. I say it is the supreme lawmaker, your position is not to have one other than to deny a master.

so god created everything from nothing, in a somewhere, but no where because nothing exist place ?

still have not told me a difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist.

 

what's the difference ?

[photon propeller]

so god created everything from nothing, in a somewhere, but no where because nothing exist place ?

still have not told me a difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist.

 

what's the difference ?

krash, your going to have to make complete sentences if you want a response. Creation didnt occur from nothing it occurred from a singularity in which the fundamental forces were united and the total energy of our universe was contained within it. I believe the source of that complex energy is God. We are all shimmering forms of that single energy. Therefore I believe we are all a part of God. God manifests in all that exists.

Edited May 20, 2013 by photon propeller

[krash661]

krash, your going to have to make complete sentences if you want a response. Creation didnt occur from nothing it occurred from a singularity in which the fundamental forces were united and the total energy of our universe was contained within it. I believe the source of that complex energy is God. We are all shimmering forms of that single energy. Therefore I believe we are all a part of God. God manifests in all that exists.

hmm, i'm not sure what a complete sentence is compared to a sentence.

i thought the period at the end made it clear it was complete.

are you seriously going to play grammar police on words used,

why not just understand language it's self.

if you have an understanding of language then you should have no problem.

but yes i will admit, i do not like to type, i'm basically 100% vocal. so it can lead to misspelled words and such.

 

ok, see i asked you this before,

i asked if you mean as an energy of some sort and not an individual of a sort.

see now i understand what your statements are about.

 

and if you are referring to an energy and not an individual, then i have to say,

you do not understand the definition of god.

god

 

god [god]

n (plural gods)

1. supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe

Thor, the Norse god of thunder

 

2. figure or image: a representation of a god, used as an object of worship

the little bronze god standing in a niche above the altar

 

3. something that dominates: something that is so important that it takes over somebody's life (informal)

worshiping the false god of fame

 

4. somebody admired: a man who is widely admired or imitated (informal)

He was one of the rock music gods of the early Seventies.

 

 

 

or gods, npl

fate: the entire group of supernatural beings viewed as deciding human fate

 

 

[ Old English , < Indo-European, "that which is invoked"]

 

 

-god·less·ly, , adv

-god·less·ness, , n

God

 

n

supreme being: the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshiped as the only god

 

 

interj

Edited May 20, 2013 by krash661

[photon propeller]

hmm, i'm not sure what a complete sentence is compared to a sentence.

i thought the period at the end made it clear it was complete.

are you seriously going to play grammar police on words used,

why not just understand language it's self.

if you have an understanding of language then you should have no problem.

but yes i will admit, i do not like to type, i'm basically 100% vocal. so it can lead to misspelled words and such.

 

ok, see i asked you this before,

i asked if you mean as an energy of some sort and not an individual of a sort.

see now i understand what your statements are about.

 

and if you are referring to an energy and not an individual, then i have to say,

you do not understand the definition of god.

The fact is Krash that what i have presented here is my definition of God as I am unsatisfied with the refutable traditions and beliefs of mainstream orthodox followers. I believe that God is the master of infinite complex energy and the source of the energy of our creation.

[krash661]

The fact is Krash that what i have presented here is my definition of God as I am unsatisfied with the refutable traditions and beliefs of mainstream orthodox followers. I believe that God is the master of infinite complex energy and the source of the energy of our creation.

just so i understand,

you mean as an energy of some sort and not an individual of a sort

and substitute this energy with the word of god,

 

correct ?

[Moontanman]

The fact is Krash that what i have presented here is my definition of God as I am unsatisfied with the refutable traditions and beliefs of mainstream orthodox followers. I believe that God is the master of infinite complex energy and the source of the energy of our creation.

 

So your dissatisfaction results in making unfalsifiable assertions that are no better than the traditions and beliefs you are already dissatisfied with?

[MonDie]

Here, photon propeller's god.

I believe that God is the master of infinite complex energy and the source of the energy of our creation.
[What is this "complex energy"?]

-
-

The laws are not random, they were designed.

The laws must be in place before cause and effect can occur. It is my assertion that the architect of those principals is God.

All processes have rules to follow, natural constants, did those parameters just appear or were they designed? This is where we disagree, I claim they have an origin, a supreme lawmaker, the complex energy of God. What laws do you abide by? I believe in knowledge. God is the master of all knowledge. The assertions are not meaningless, they depend on a belief in God, one that discludes nothing, no one. The origin of everything. [so, God is both everything and the origin of everything?]

-
-

When all the energy in our universe was released in the beginning, there were already rules in place which that energy would abide by, the laws of physics. Once the laws were in place it is no longer necessary for any interference because the universe is a self evolving system consistent with those rules. The only variable in the beginning was the amount of energy God set forth.

Creation didnt occur from nothing it occurred from a singularity in which the fundamental forces were united and the total energy of our universe was contained within it. I believe the source of that complex energy is God. [Again, what is this "complex energy"?]
We are all shimmering forms of that single energy. Therefore I believe we are all a part of God. God manifests in all that exists.
[so, we're part of God because we're CE, and God is both the CE itself and the master and source of the CE?]

-
-

I told you the fact that physical constants rule nature and those constants have scale, intensity, amplitude, symmetry, harmony, etc. is what necessitates a rule maker. I showed you an example of the energy density constant but you were oblivious to its existence.

Isn't it just as possible if not probable that those laws are not random? When in fact we know that they have symmetry, harmony, limits, and natural constants.

 

Here, photon propeller appears to argue that our universe must have been made by a knowing being. Omniscience is an attribute often ascribed to gods.

I cannot tell if PP is making the same argument, but the argument reminds me of another common arguments, the argument that the values determined at the big bang, the values necessary for life, must have been decided by a knowing being that knew what properties were needed for life.

 

I would love to argue against this, but these arguments have a tendency to really suck me in and waste a lot of my time.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Moontanman]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if we suddenly found out the universe is really excrement?

[MonDie]

Here's the Scientific American viewpoint.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

 

It gets to the point in paragraphs 5-6.

This picture of the universe, or multiverse, as it is called, explains the long-standing mystery of why the constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the emergence of life.

 

I wish I had some knowledge of physics, but I only know the few equations I learned from my chemistry textbook.

 

---

 

 

Wouldn't it be a hoot if we suddenly found out the universe is really excrement?

 

Oh yeah, I love excrement. I love its smell and its taste.

[Moontanman]

Here's the Scientific American viewpoint.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

 

It gets to the point in paragraphs 5-6.

 

I wish I had some knowledge of physics, but I only know the few equations I learned from my chemistry textbook.

 

---

 

 

 

Oh yeah, I love excrement. I love its smell and its taste.

 

 

Ohhhh a scatophile ​ The argument that the universe is fine tuned for us is flawed in a fundamental way. First of all the universe is definitely not fine tuned for life, life can exist only in a very tiny fraction of the universe, second if the universe were different then things would be different and we wouldn't be here to expound on how fine tuned it was to begin with....

[MonDie]

Ohhhh a scatophile ​

 

especially the poop of the sea cucumber...

 

The argument that the universe is fine tuned for us is flawed in a fundamental way. First of all the universe is definitely not fine tuned for life, life can exist only in a very tiny fraction of the universe,

 

Not necessarily. If existence is infinite, there may be infinitely many life-forms. This would render the fine-tuned argument irrelevant. God didn't give a damn (pun intended) how fine-tuned it was because it was infinite.

Yet that does not solve the so called "problem of evil."

 

 

second if the universe were different then things would be different and we wouldn't be here to expound on how fine tuned it was to begin with....

 

I'm not sure that argument works.

 

If we assume there are multiple universes, we might explain the hospitability of our own universe in two ways.

(1) Universes tend to be hospitable.

(2) Even if inhospitable universes dominate, we necessarily exist in a hospitable one.

 

However, if we assume there is only one universe, neither of these apply. We have to accept that:

(1) The only universe is a hospitable universe.

(2) If this universe were inhospitable, there would be nothing to witness at all.

Thus we would be left with the question, "Why is the only universe a hospitable universe?"

Of course, we would have no reason to favor the Christian's answer over something like the simulation hypothesis, but we would still need an answer if hospitability were something very, very improbable.

 

But, in the end, the physicists have the best answer. The battle need not be won twice.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Moontanman]

especially the poop of the sea cucumber...

 

 

Not necessarily. If existence is infinite, there may be infinitely many life-forms. This would render the fine-tuned argument irrelevant. God didn't give a damn (pun intended) how fine-tuned it was because it was infinite.

Yet that does not solve the so called "problem of evil."

 

If... If a frog had wings they wouldn't bust their little slimy butts every time they jump. We have no more evidence for an infinite universe than we have for a god. Life in the universe is at best a chemical reaction that only occurs under rare conditions, the vast majority of the universe doesn't support that chemical reaction.

 

I'm not sure that argument works.

 

If we assume there are multiple universes, we might explain the hospitability of our own universe in two ways.

(1) Universes tend to be hospitable.

(2) Even if inhospitable universes dominate, we necessarily exist in a hospitable one.

 

However, if we assume there is only one universe, neither of these apply. We have to accept that:

(1) The only universe is a hospitable universe.

(2) If this universe were inhospitable, there would be nothing to witness at all.

Thus we would be left with the question, "Why is the only universe a hospitable universe?"

Of course, we would have no reason to favor the Christian's answer over something like the simulation hypothesis, but we would still need an answer if hospitability were something very, very improbable.

 

But, in the end, the physicists have the best answer. The battle need not be won twice.

 

Again the assumption of multiple universes is no better than the assumption of a god, it's just as likely that the laws of nature cannot be anything but what they are and allow a universe to exist.

 

Then there is the idea that quite different laws could allow for life in a universe. A universe with no weak nuclear force would look pretty much like our own and allow life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe

 

The hypothetical weak interaction-less universe is meant to serve as a counter example to the anthropic approach to the hierarchy problem. In the weakless universe other parameters are varied as the electroweak breaking scale is changed. Indeed, string theory implies that the landscape is very big and diverse. The seeming habitability of the Weakless Universe implies that one cannot explain the hierarchy problem by anthropic reasoning alone, and that one must make strong assumptions about the available vacua in the landscape.

[MonDie]

If... If a frog had wings they wouldn't bust their little slimy butts every time they jump. We have no more evidence for an infinite universe than we have for a god.

 

You might be right to say that we have no evidence of an infinite universe.

 

1) Inflation may be wrong (or not eternal)

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

 

But there is some evidence for multiple universes, even if inflation isn't necessarily eternal.

 

For the most part, physicists did not take these ideas seriously, but much to their surprise, dark energy of roughly the expected magnitude was detected in astronomical observations in the late 1990s. This could be our first evidence that there is indeed a huge multiverse out there. It has changed many minds.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

 

Note: I begin using the term "god-tuned" because fine-tuning isn't always explained theologically, as with the anthropic approach.

 

The god-tuned concept or the designer concept lacks evidence, whereas the multiverse theory has some evidence.

 

 

Again the assumption of multiple universes is no better than the assumption of a god, it's just as likely that the laws of nature cannot be anything but what they are and allow a universe to exist.

 

Then there is the idea that quite different laws could allow for life in a universe. A universe with no weak nuclear force would look pretty much like our own and allow life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe

 

Alright, maybe our universe isn't fine-tuned.

 

---

 

To the gnostic readers: I say there is no evidence for a designer because I think of evidence as fulfilled predictions. The designer concept has no fulfilled predictions, it just rests on arguments for its necessity (not just its necessity for fine-tuning, but also for biological adaptions and even the genesis of life). The problem with arguments for necessity is that they're difficult to uphold. To uphold one, you have to show that there is no possible alternative. Since the "necessary" hypothesis lacks evidence, the alternatives don't need evidence either. An alternative could be just about any whacky explanation my creative mind can crap out.

 

Note: The term "argument for necessity" is something I just made up. It's not formal.

 

To quote photon propeller once again.

I told you the fact that physical constants rule nature and those constants have scale, intensity, amplitude, symmetry, harmony, etc. is what necessitates a rule maker.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die