+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Rubik's Cube (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Thread: God's existence--A different approach (/showthread.php?tid=55861)
Pages:
1
2
God's existence--A different approach - SaptaZapta - 2012-07-12
Eos Wrote:You're wrong again, because in your example attempt the world you created was in fact a subset of your own.
You can't create something too alien because you simply haven't got a frame of reference to begin to do so with.
You're constrained to think of the physical laws of your own native universe as the building blocks available to you and would have to really, really try to come up with alternatives and keep it cohesive.
Go ahead, try to define an arbitrarily different reality, rather than one that makes minor modifications like 'people can fly'.
But I am not an infinitely powerful and intelligent god. Nor am I a nonsentient phenomenon in a reality with no disorder.
You are again assuming that the trigger, and its entire milieu, are so similar to a human in our world, that they are limited to what you feel is reasonable to expect of a human with super powers (or technology).
Consider the famous game of Life. Do you think the entities living in it could deduce anything at all about the programmers that made their world? Except for a certain familiarity with the concepts of "birth" "death" "crowding" and "loneliness", absolutely nothing. And what those concepts mean to the Life-entities is utterly different than what they mean to programmers. Actually it would be rather amusing to see what kind of "God" those entities would come up with.
God's existence--A different approach - Eos - 2012-07-12
Your counter argument assumes from the other extremes, on one hand it requires the supposition that god is all powerful, and for the rest of your argument you're comparing inanimate objects to sentient ones. They're not even AI's in any meaningful interpretation of the term, so really a stretch. You've no middle ground to stand on.
God's existence--A different approach - SaptaZapta - 2012-07-12
I use extremes because I am trying to show that whatever triggered the big bang could be the OP's definition of "God", or it could be a "natural phenomenon" (of its universe), or it could be anything in between. We know nothing about it and can deduce nothing about it from what we know of our own universe.
But I see that I fail in communicating that, so I'm just going to bow out at this point. (Not promising not to jump in again later)
God's existence--A different approach - Eos - 2012-07-12
SaptaZapta Wrote:I use extremes because I am trying to show that whatever triggered the big bang could be the OP's definition of "God", or it could be a "natural phenomenon" (of its universe), or it could be anything in between. We know nothing about it and can deduce nothing about it from what we know of our own universe.
But I see that I fail in communicating that, so I'm just going to bow out at this point. (Not promising not to jump in again later)
I don't honestly see the distinction between the two unless the first one implies a violation of the physical laws of the universe ala divine intervention "just" to cause the big bang, since the big bang itself appears to have been a natural part of the mechanics of the universe which, if it's a created thing, would then of course be something the creator was responsible for, whether directly or indirectly. Of course I am also not entirely clear on what the big bang has to do with whether or not there is a God in this context, so I either missed that bit or it was related to an assumption we don't share.
I do agree we know little about a lot, but disagree about our ability to deduce things. Even rats in a maze can determine their boundaries and test their strengths and look for openings.
Anywho, for anyone wanting further reading on this argument, since most of it is no where near as novel as we'd like to think; http://www.simulation-argument.com/
God's existence--A different approach - Satellite - 2012-07-12
Too many scientific english words, so forgive me if this is completely off the subject.
I just want to say that the omnipotent God of Abrahamic Religions really raises more questions than what it's trying to answer. I agree with Kalovale that everything that exists has a cause. Also, I believe that there must be some factors that are eternal and have always existed. But I think that the eternal factors cannot be something like an absurdly complex being with magical abilities. In fact, I could be talking about some laws here, like time for example. These little factors have then, over time, lead to series of events, and the big bang.
Basically, it goes like this:
Scientific View/Big Bang: Simple Factors-> Big Bang -> Complex universe
Religious View: Complex Creator->*some cheesy magic tricks here*-> Complex universe
Religious View 2: Complex Creator-> Big Bang -> Complex universe
Basically, people who believe in such an omnipotent God, could just as well believe that this whole universe in all its complexity has always been there. Because, de facto, God of the abrahamic religions is a bigger complex than the universe itself.
Then again, even if we'll manage to confirm big bang theory, it could still be part of a bigger image (paraller universe theory etc. etc.) and honestly, personally it doesn't seem all that infeasible.
God's existence--A different approach - Tristan - 2012-07-14
(If you do not believe in god and him creating things please ignore my post entirely)
The theory that something has just "been here" (god) is just such a hard theory for us humans to wrap our mines around because we just don't believe things without proof. I know some of you do not believe in the bible, but Mose' cane did not turn into a snake because he wanted it to. When the red sea was parted for the Israelites to go through, it wasn't because Moses held up his staff, it was because of god's intervention. In the bible it shows on MANY MANY occasions of Moses (among other people) accrediting ALL their blessings to god. Jesus NEVER took any credit for any of the miracles he preformed, and credited them all to god. He never once said "I raised this person with my power" NO human on earth can resurrect anyone, so if the ONE PERSON who "just so happens" to do it says it's an act of god, would it not be?
What more proof do you need exactly...
God's existence--A different approach - Eos - 2012-07-15
Tristan Wrote:What more proof do you need exactly...
What proof did you provide, exactly?
God's existence--A different approach - SaptaZapta - 2012-07-15
Tristan Wrote:What more proof do you need exactly...
Proof that the Bible is not a work of fiction.
God's existence--A different approach - Afeared - 2012-07-15
The only proof of any being that actually exists is myself. If I were to have proof that god exists, then I could only prove to myself that I am god. *Pushes Solipsism to the side*
It is impossible for one structure to create anything more complex than itself unless it is done by accident. We do not know if everything that exists was made by accident or on purpose. If god were to exist, and assuming god created everything, then god would be far more complex than anything god created. Being an engineer, I know that there truly is no such thing as an independent variable, the idea of god just leads to an annoying paradox (I'm not saying that there is no possibility of a creator, but that being a creator does not mean being god).
The universe is vast with an incredible amount of possibilities, and every result is driven by some sort of force.
There is a formula for everything.... physics, biology, etc. I think there is an extremely complex never ending formula for what we live in, and "god" is an inferior being to this formula.
God's existence--A different approach - Eos - 2012-07-15
SaptaZapta Wrote:Proof that the Bible is not a work of fiction.
"Hearsay" is more polite.
God's existence--A different approach - Taarie - 2012-07-23
I want to bring a devil's advocate question and one sincere question to the topic:
If we look around it becomes evident that most people believe in an specific god/gods as part of a social/cultural/regional phenomena, how people that believe in god explain that their believes are not the result of lack of imagination?
Does anyone believe in God without following a specific religion?
God's existence--A different approach - Eos - 2012-07-23
Taarie Wrote:Does anyone believe in God without following a specific religion?
Many people do, really. Most people just use the label that's closest to what they believe, without actually being what the label encompasses.
God's existence--A different approach - Fiel - 2012-07-23
Taarie Wrote:Does anyone believe in God without following a specific religion?
"I'm spiritual but not religious."
God's existence--A different approach - IImaplers - 2012-07-23
Whatever context or backdrop you use, nothing can be proven or disproven completely, be it the existence of god or that you are reading this sentence. Believers will believe, and non-believers the opposite (and then there's those somewhere in between, like myself). The problem is when one side is arrogant enough to not broaden their horizons by choosing to believe/disbelieve whatever they are believing/disbelieving without questioning/criticizing it, or questioning/criticizing it thoroughly and constantly.
Anyway, my religion/stance: A sort of agnostic, deist, and realist blended into one who is cognizant about the good and bad things about religion and religions.
God's existence--A different approach - xiiliea - 2012-07-24
I'm an atheist and I don't believe anything supernatural exists. There is no proof that God exists, only assumptions. A very common explanation is that there must be something which created everything. However, what created God then? And what created the creator of God? If you say God just appeared out of nowhere, then why can't the universe appear out of nowhere? I'm not saying the universe appeared out of nowhere either. There is just no way that how the world was created can be proven and therefore I do not fully believe in anything, but I don't agree that a "God" just appeared out of nowhere and created the universe. I think it's best to just live my life as I wish, as I decide how I wish to live. Religion is just a way of life and I can choose not to follow it.
Note: I still respect what you believe and I'm not a hardcore opposer of religion
God's existence--A different approach - Satellite - 2012-07-24
IImaplers Wrote:Whatever context or backdrop you use, nothing can be proven or disproven completely, be it the existence of god or that you are reading this sentence. Believers will believe, and non-believers the opposite (and then there's those somewhere in between, like myself). The problem is when one side is arrogant enough to not broaden their horizons by choosing to believe/disbelieve whatever they are believing/disbelieving without questioning/criticizing it, or questioning/criticizing it thoroughly and constantly.I agree, except that there indeed is one thing that can be proven. That is your own consciousness. Because even considering that everything we sense can be an illusion, then there still must be a source for these illusions. I cannot 100% prove you exist, but I can 100% prove that I exist.
Anyway, my religion/stance: A sort of agnostic, deist, and realist blended into one who is cognizant about the good and bad things about religion and religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
God's existence--A different approach - SaptaZapta - 2012-07-24
Satellite Wrote:I agree, except that there indeed is one thing that can be proven. That is your own consciousness. Because even considering that everything we sense can be an illusion, then there still must be a source for these illusions. I cannot 100% prove you exist, but I can 100% prove that I exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
The catch is that you can only prove it to yourself.
You can't prove to me that you exist.
God's existence--A different approach - Stereo - 2012-07-24
Satellite Wrote:Too many scientific english words, so forgive me if this is completely off the subject.
I just want to say that the omnipotent God of Abrahamic Religions really raises more questions than what it's trying to answer. I agree with Kalovale that everything that exists has a cause. Also, I believe that there must be some factors that are eternal and have always existed. But I think that the eternal factors cannot be something like an absurdly complex being with magical abilities. In fact, I could be talking about some laws here, like time for example. These little factors have then, over time, lead to series of events, and the big bang.
Basically, it goes like this:
Scientific View/Big Bang: Simple Factors-> Big Bang -> Complex universe
Religious View: Complex Creator->*some cheesy magic tricks here*-> Complex universe
Religious View 2: Complex Creator-> Big Bang -> Complex universe
Basically, people who believe in such an omnipotent God, could just as well believe that this whole universe in all its complexity has always been there. Because, de facto, God of the abrahamic religions is a bigger complex than the universe itself.
Then again, even if we'll manage to confirm big bang theory, it could still be part of a bigger image (paraller universe theory etc. etc.) and honestly, personally it doesn't seem all that infeasible.
Why drop the simple factors from the religious views? What they're potentially saying is
Relatively Simple Factors -> Complex Creator -> cheesy special effects -> Complex universe
|
Relatively Simple Factors -> Complex Creator -> Simple Factors -> Big Bang -> Complex universe
The reason I say relatively simple factors exist before the complex creator goes like this: Either (1) the complex creator always existed, leading to your sequences, or (2) it came from something. If (2), then either it came from something more complex (which should really be called all powerful, since it contains the already existing all-powerful) or something less complex, which I made a note of.
Or, with a slightly different viewpoint as to causality,
>Simple Factors -> Big Bang -> Complex universe>\
\_____________<_Complex Creator_<_________/
Something all-powerful (or 'more powerful than any other entity' if you want that route) doesn't necessarily have to begin existing before the universe - it could just go back and ensure its own creation.
God's existence--A different approach - IImaplers - 2012-07-24
Satellite Wrote:I agree, except that there indeed is one thing that can be proven. That is your own consciousness. Because even considering that everything we sense can be an illusion, then there still must be a source for these illusions. I cannot 100% prove you exist, but I can 100% prove that I exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
I kind of agree to this theory. But it can be argued that one cannot prove oneself exists by mere thought because the act of thought cannot be visually defined. Seeing is believing, but thought cannot be seen. The concept of "I" in "I think therefore I am" already signifies that our acknowledgement of ourselves as "I" somehow proves our conscious existence, even though how that's proven is impossible to conceptualize and visualize itself.
Okay, I'll stop now. My brain hurts from this.
