God from the Investigation of Existence

[Stubbly_Dooright]

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Some can only see the clouds and the rain. Others can see the flowers that will follow. Flowers wither and die and such is the way of all flesh. Yet in the skein of life, new blossoms bloom with each succeeding generation and the butterflies of joy alight anew, where young hearts take root in the everlasting dawn and dewy gardens of tomorrow..

Uh, I'll get back to you on that!       

My slight learning disability is having a field day at the moment. *shrugs* 

[+Hammerclaw]

7 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Uh, I'll get back to you on that!       

My slight learning disability is having a field day at the moment. *shrugs* 

What is a youth?
Impetuous fire.
What is a maid?
Ice and desire.
The world wags on

A rose will bloom,
it then will fade
So does a youth.
So does the fairest maid.

Comes a time when one sweet smile
Has its season for awhile
Then Love's in love with me

Some may think only to marry.
Others will tease and tarry.
Mine is the very best parry,
Cupid he rules us all.

Caper the caper; sing me the song
Death will come soon to hush us along
Sweeter than honey and bitter as gall,
Love is a task and it never will pall.
Sweeter than honey and bitter as gall,
Cupid he rules us all.

A rose will bloom, it then will fade.
So does a youth.
So does the fairest maid

by Nino Rota   from the movie Romeo and Juliet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Browse Artists / Submit Lyrics  / New Lyrics / USA Singles Chart / Top Albums / Top Lyrics / RSS Feeds / Link to Us / Contact Us

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

What is a youth?
Impetuous fire.
What is a maid?
Ice and desire.
The world wags on

A rose will bloom,
it then will fade
So does a youth.
So does the fairest maid.

Comes a time when one sweet smile
Has its season for awhile
Then Love's in love with me

Some may think only to marry.
Others will tease and tarry.
Mine is the very best parry,
Cupid he rules us all.

Caper the caper; sing me the song
Death will come soon to hush us along
Sweeter than honey and bitter as gall,
Love is a task and it never will pall.
Sweeter than honey and bitter as gall,
Cupid he rules us all.

A rose will bloom, it then will fade.
So does a youth.
So does the fairest maid

by Nino Rota   from the movie Romeo and Juliet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Browse Artists / Submit Lyrics  / New Lyrics / USA Singles Chart / Top Albums / Top Lyrics / RSS Feeds / Link to Us / Contact Us

 

Ok..............       

 

[MauriOra]

On 05/04/2018 at 4:11 AM, Hammerclaw said:

Of course, but I remain true to my first love. You can never have a genie, but finding "magic" in a wife is a real possibility.

Atamarie Mr HammerClaw ..

I Hope you have been Well Sir ..

I love what you wrote , and I Believe *YES* .. How Right You Are .... Finding *Magic* in a Wife ,and also a Husband,  is a Real Possibility ..!!!..

Peace to you and yours Good Sir ..

Mo..xx

[White Crane Feather]

On 2/10/2018 at 8:39 AM, oslove said:

Dear colleagues here, my purpose is to get your reactions on my idea that man, that is you and me, does come to the existence of God from examining what is existence.

So, first we must work as to concur on the concept of existence and the concept of God.

Here is my concept of what is existence:

Existence is what we experience with our senses in particular our consciousness, for example we experience the nose in our face, babies, roses, the sun in the sky at daytime and the moon in the sky at night, they all are instances of existence: and it is by our senses and in particular our consciousness that we come to know what is existence.

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

There, what do you, dear colleagues here, think of my thinking in this first post of the thread?

We have discovered all the natural phenomenon that we need for universes to start. There is no need for a creator god to start a universe. Now on the back level that which supports existence itself is an interesting muse of philosophy. There is reason to believe a vast but limited intelligence  did indeed wright the code that supports existence. The universe conserves processing power. If things just existed there would be no need for this function in nature. 

We have to also contend with the fact that in all of eternity, by virtue of what we know to be true, that a godlike consciousness would likely eventually evolve... being eternity, then eventually goes backwards and that being has already evolved infact an eternity ago. 

Most evidence points to some sort of god like being or universal consciousness as being a reality. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by White Crane Feather

[XenoFish]

No evidence points to a god or creator.

[ChrLzs]

24 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Most evidence points to some sort of god like being or universal consciousness as being a reality. 

So post the best bit.  Then, once we are all convinced ... we can move on to asking who created that creator.

[Jodie.Lynne]

26 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Most evidence points to some sort of god like being or universal consciousness as being a reality. 

What evidence would that be?

[+Sherapy]

40 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

We have discovered all the natural phenomenon that we need for universes to start. There is no need for a creator god to start a universe. Now on the back level that which supports existence itself is an interesting muse of philosophy. There is reason to believe a vast but limited intelligence  did indeed wright the code that supports existence. The universe conserves processing power. If things just existed there would be no need for this function in nature. 

We have to also contend with the fact that in all of eternity, by virtue of what we know to be true, that a godlike consciousness would likely eventually evolve... being eternity, then eventually goes backwards and that being has already evolved infact an eternity ago. 

Most evidence points to some sort of god like being or universal consciousness as being a reality. 

You know the drill WCF, post the evidence.

 

[+Hammerclaw]

[ChrLzs]

On 3/31/2018 at 10:01 AM, Guyver said:

Right.  I mean, the eye is pretty awesome.  And weird really, the way it works.

I'm probably repeating this (was it this thread - I don't remember), but for those who just don't 'get' how evolution *can* develop complex stuff like an eye, here's how it worked (and still works...):

It's from Cosmos via Neil deGrasse-Tyson, so surely it's worth 5 minutes of your time.. and be prepared for a scary bit!

[White Crane Feather]

 

*snip*

 

Well actually in all logical possibilities of a creator, the creator would be eternal, and didn't need a creator. Which brings me to my first argument.

I'm not offering proof other than the kind of proof you might need to prove 1+1= 2.

If there is not a God, then one day there will be one which of course means that it's already happened. Let me explain.

Eternity is a very long time. This universe will pass away and others will be born. Yes yes yes I know we have no proof that there are others. The fact that we are here  tells us that there is a probability for a universe existing obviously. Most scientist seem to agree that the origins of our universe was a very rare quantum fluctuation. Maybe 10X10^9999999999 eons apart. But of course that's chump change when it comes to eternity. 

What am I talking about? Evolution. Given enough cycles some sort of life will evolve to the point that it masters nature and survive the heat death of its universe. Potentially a singularity of some sort, or slower. It dosnt matter. At that point, it's going to be powerful enough clearly look god like to us, and it may even know how to create those kinds of quantum events to start a universe. A form of reproduction maybe? Or it would maybe meld with the universe or something only to discover it just melded with itself from eternity passed.  Hell I don't know. The point is that in all eternity sombody is going to win the evolution game, and in all eternity we already know it's happened an infinite amount of times. What do we end up with? An infinite being that seems to be all powerful. Now I'm not going to guess what this being does in its spare time, maybe nothing. Maybe mess with humans. Maybe create things, write simulations .. whatever. 

So you see, we have two things that when put together only really have one outcome. Evolution + eternity = Something god like.  

Its interesting because what we know to be true inevitably leads to what you might call divinity. It's only when we throw in the assumption of a threshold for evolution that is impossible to surmount do we get a wrench in process. Evolution + Eternity + impossible to surmount threshold = nothing godlike. Even then we would still end up with extreme intelligences that are dam near godlike, but I would not consider anything truly godlike unless it can survive heat death. Heat death being the final threshold most likely. 

In a nut shell my first argument, is simple. When you combine just a few things. Eternity, the uncertainty principle, and evolution there is only one possible outcome unless we assume some sort of threshold. It seems to me though, that assumption would be built purely on bias as there is no reason to assume something would stop an eventual intelligence from evolving into a super conscious eternal entity. 

Well how do we test for this entity if we want it to be scientific instead of just a logical theory? 

Well, we make hypotheses of course and start testing them. What the heck are we even going to test for!? The only thing we can really take a stab it is if the processes of nature is created or not. If it's created it should leave some clues. It turns out that the fundamental processes of nature look very much as if they were designed that way. In fact, we have other independent examples where the same sort of processes are indeed created by intelligence, but that leads into the next set of arguments, but I'm getting tired. 

 

[White Crane Feather]

15 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You know the drill WCF, post the evidence.

 

Good to hear from you. See my response to Chrlz

[XenoFish]

All I read was a poor excuse for "proof", I've come to expect that though. 

[White Crane Feather]

21 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

None of those things need a creator. That's the fall back for your kind, "I don't know, therefore god." 

Just admit you don't know like the rest of us. 

This isn't a question of knowing. This a question of wether or not there is a clear logical path based on science to why there would be one or something at least like it. For us to consider it solid  scientifically the theory would have to make predictions, and those would have to robustly pan out and a robust framework like the standard model would have to be fleshed out. But none of that matters. We can conclude a lot of things confidently without being an empirical fundamentalist. Logic is powerful and given certain parameters deduction and conversely induction are very robust. Proof... no. Evidence?.... yes. 

As I have mentioned there is. In fact without an unsurmountable threshold it's a certainty. If you tried to understand my argument, you would realize that I also agree there needs to be no creator. Infact a god would be an eternal constant existing simultaneously with eternal nature. Nothing needs be created although there is nothing stopping a sufficiently powerful entity from creating.

There also needs be no threshold to stop a god like being from evolving an eternity ago... or at that point it might be more like a natural constant. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by White Crane Feather

[ChrLzs]

4 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

 

What a nice way to reintroduce yourself.  I'll stick to facts and figures and avoid such ad hominems, OK?  BTW, using large text could be interepreted as being pompous and self-important, don't you think?  It's certainly annoying as it causes the quote editing to not work properly.  (For those similarly annoyed by that behavior, where the editor won't allow you to break out of the quote, here's what to do (Windows) - select all of the text in the quote, Cut it (Ctrl-X) and then paste it back but as plain text (Ctrl-Shift-V).  After that the line breaks should work.)

Quote

Well actually in all logical possibilities of a creator, the creator would be eternal, and didn't need a creator. Which brings me to my first argument.

No it doesn't.  Explain why you apply one rule to the Creator and another rule to the creation.  If you can't, even the basic premise of your point of view is completely broken.  If you wish to use logic, and that seems to be your approach, you do not get to handwave away the most basic issues without any explanation.  If that's allowed, then you might as well say God is a Pink Unicorn.

AFTER you explain that complete breakdown of logic, then let's talk about your 'first argument'.

 

[Kismit]

Mod Note: Insults are not an acceptable form of discussion.

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

What am I talking about? Evolution. Given enough cycles some sort of life will evolve to the point that it masters nature and survive the heat death of its universe. Potentially a singularity of some sort, or slower. It dosnt matter. At that point, it's going to be powerful enough clearly look god like to us, and it may even know how to create those kinds of quantum events to start a universe. A form of reproduction maybe? Or it would maybe meld with the universe or something only to discover it just melded with itself from eternity passed.  Hell I don't know. The point is that in all eternity sombody is going to win the evolution game, and in all eternity we already know it's happened an infinite amount of times. What do we end up with? An infinite being that seems to be all powerful. Now I'm not going to guess what this being does in its spare time, maybe nothing. Maybe mess with humans. Maybe create things, write simulations .. whatever. 

Although this is interesting I would definitely disagree with the confidence you have in this line of thinking.  I think there are issues with the way you are supposing evolution will unfold, but my biggest criticism would have to be with your last sentences, where you're not going to guess what this being does in its spare time.  I already know the answer to that given your reasoning: it's going to do everything it can possibly do eventually. 

Your overall argument seems to rely roughly on 'eternity plus possibility equals eventual reality'.  Sounds logical but in this case it seems self-defeating or contradictory to me as you seem to implicitly be putting up unjustified boundaries at the same time.  First off there will presumably be many (an infinite number?) of these god-like beings given your overall equation.  That is the implication of eternity I think you are relying on to get your super being in the first place.  This then of course includes that a being will evolve who will have the capability and desire to destroy the entire universe and itself, which will then end all further evolution and possibly eternity depending on how you think that works.  Or perhaps eventually there will be a devastating war between these god like beings that destroys them and everything else. The possibilities (/certainties, in eternity) are endless.

At a high level it seems you need to contend with the fact that along with the things you believe will eventually emerge due to the logical implications of eternity, the negation of these things will also emerge and eliminate or counteract them if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly.

[White Crane Feather]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

What a nice way to reintroduce yourself.  I'll stick to facts and figures and avoid such ad hominems, OK?  BTW, using large text could be interepreted as being pompous and self-important, don't you think?  It's certainly annoying as it causes the quote editing to not work properly.  (For those similarly annoyed by that behavior, where the editor won't allow you to break out of the quote, here's what to do (Windows) - select all of the text in the quote, Cut it (Ctrl-X) and then paste it back but as plain text (Ctrl-Shift-V).  After that the line breaks should work.)

No it doesn't.  Explain why you apply one rule to the Creator and another rule to the creation.  If you can't, even the basic premise of your point of view is completely broken.  If you wish to use logic, and that seems to be your approach, you do not get to handwave away the most basic issues without any explanation.  If that's allowed, then you might as well say God is a Pink Unicorn.

AFTER you explain that complete breakdown of logic, then let's talk about your 'first argument'.

 

I wasn't introducing myself, we have talked before, and my comment was more of about  enduring sarcasm than an adhom which would have been used to discredit your argument and using annoying would be a very lame adhom. I could do much better. I have seen you use similar sacrasim and jabs by the butt loads over the years, so I thought you might apreciate it. My bad and my apologies.  Being annoying isn't a sign of weakness and might be a sign of strength.

I have explained myself enough so far. If you don't know what I'm getting at, try rereading it and addressing the points. I'm sorry it's been 20 years since I have been in a structured rhetoric course, so I'm not going to play that game with you. Address the points made or not your choice. I'll pick up with LG.

[+Hammerclaw]

"See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand." Galatians 6:11

 

[XenoFish]

Ignosticism, or igtheism is a theological position. If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God's existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It can be summarized as "We have no clear concept of anything labeled 'God' and/or how to test it, nor do we have any reason to suspect that anyone does either." Ignosticism is based on a broader ontological/epistemological view that expects all questions and theories to be of clear and sound arguments. The arguments ought to have well defined terms and the possibility of critical and rational analysis. Ignosticism is responding to God claims (and possibly all supernatural claims) through this particular approach to knowledge. The answer is invariably that they are non-questions not worth taking seriously.

Ignosticism

"I don't know and no one knows" is a valid answer.

[White Crane Feather]

25 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Although this is interesting I would definitely disagree with the confidence you have in this line of thinking.  I think there are issues with the way you are supposing evolution will unfold, but my biggest criticism would have to be with your last sentences, where you're not going to guess what this being does in its spare time.  I already know the answer to that given your reasoning: it's going to do everything it can possibly do eventually. 

Your overall argument seems to rely roughly on 'eternity plus possibility equals eventual reality'.  Sounds logical but in this case it seems self-defeating or contradictory to me as you seem to implicitly be putting up unjustified boundaries at the same time.  First off there will presumably be many (an infinite number?) of these god-like beings given your overall equation.  That is the implication of eternity I think you are relying on to get your super being in the first place.  This then of course includes that a being will evolve who will have the capability and desire to destroy the entire universe and itself, which will then end all further evolution and possibly eternity depending on how you think that works.  Or perhaps eventually there will be a devastating war between these god like beings that destroys them and everything else. The possibilities (/certainties, in eternity) are endless.

At a high level it seems you need to contend with the fact that along with the things you believe will eventually emerge due to the logical implications of eternity, the negation of these things will also emerge and eliminate or counteract them if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly.

I'm not supposing anything about evolution. That was my point. It takes other assumptions to stop it. Is it possible there is an insurmountable threshold. Of course, but we have to inject it at this point to believe that evolution will not simply continue for ever for at least one group ( maybe many) of lifeforms. Intelligence would be the ultimate expression of evolution. We already know how successful it could be.

Well no that's not my answer. I would think the being to have consciousness and self awareness. I said that because I really can't fathom what it would be up to. Maybe nothing. Maybe it's so wise it just likes to experience things and savor the moment. Maybe it's not all powerful and wants to reproduce... I can't tell you. The mind of an eternal being might think in eons. 

Yes eventually an infinite amount. Whether they ever or even can find eat

45 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

"See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand." Galatians 6:11

 

Sorry for the large letters I was writing in a note app and just pasted it. I did not realize it was abnoxouse. 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, White Crane Feather said:

I'm not supposing anything about evolution. That was my point. It takes other assumptions to stop it. Is it possible there is an insurmountable threshold. Of course, but we have to inject it at this point to believe that evolution will not simply continue for ever for at least one group ( maybe many) of lifeforms. Intelligence would be the ultimate expression of evolution. We already know how successful it could be.

Well no that's not my answer. I would think the being to have consciousness and self awareness. I said that because I really can't fathom what it would be up to. Maybe nothing. Maybe it's so wise it just likes to experience things and savor the moment. Maybe it's not all powerful and wants to reproduce... I can't tell you. The mind of an eternal being might think in eons. 

Yes eventually an infinite amount. Whether they ever or even can find eat

Sorry for the large letters I was writing in a note app and just pasted it. I did not realize it was abnoxouse. 

It's fine with me. UM's native font against a white background is hard on my eyes. That's why I bold the type a lot.

[White Crane Feather]

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Ignosticism, or igtheism is a theological position. If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God's existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It can be summarized as "We have no clear concept of anything labeled 'God' and/or how to test it, nor do we have any reason to suspect that anyone does either." Ignosticism is based on a broader ontological/epistemological view that expects all questions and theories to be of clear and sound arguments. The arguments ought to have well defined terms and the possibility of critical and rational analysis. Ignosticism is responding to God claims (and possibly all supernatural claims) through this particular approach to knowledge. The answer is invariably that they are non-questions not worth taking seriously.

Ignosticism

"I don't know and no one knows" is a valid answer.

What a silly proposition. You don't know therefore you assume you can't. Wouldn't the state of not knowing also negate the knowledge of if you can or cannot know? It's essentially shutting the door do to a personal bias. It's shutting the door to investigation. There may very well be evidence even smoking gun evidnece ( and I think there is), but if you are walking around with a fuddy duddy attitude that even with advancements in technology answeres CANNOT be saught, so why ask them, then progress can never be made if indeed it's possible that it can. 

Thank god real theoretical physicists don't have that attitude toward their work. The truth is that there is a fundamental reality, and it may contain or be intelligent. We may be able to acces it or not. We don't know that. It's not a non question. It is a very worthy one. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by White Crane Feather

[ChrLzs]

And my apology in turn for biting... but that doesn't get you off the hook.

4 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

I have explained myself enough so far.

Translation - You have no answer to why you applied one rule to the Creator, and one to the Created.  So the very first premise of your 'argument' defies any logic or common sense.

To me, this whole 'debate' (which, frankly, was won & lost many many years ago, when science began explaining all those things we didn't understand and thus attributed to angry, illogical and hideously cruel 'god's) boils down to a very simple set of possibilities.  Either:

A. All things require creation by some form of intelligence/Spirit/whatever.

B. Only some things require creation.  If this is the one you believe, then there is obviously a requirement for an explanation - what criteria makes something (eg 'God') immune from creation versus that which requires creation (eg Us, the earth, the Milky Way Galaxy, etc).  Please elaborate in detail and then lets look at how that unfolds ..........

C. All things don't require creation by some form of intelligence/Spirit/whatever.

Just 3 possibilities (but feel free to add any possibility you think I missed...).  Now it seems (correct me) your position is option B.  I (and others, judging by the replies here) want you to answer some basic questions (starting with my above request for the criteria) that arise from that option.

Anyway, it's up to you - you can just run like the wind ignore the questions as you seem to be wanting to do, or genuinely debate.  If you take the former position, then I think a casual reader would be entitled to observe that you have no case, and your refusal to 'play games' when no games are being offered is just an avoidance tactic.