Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
oslove

God from the Investigation of Existence

648 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
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 by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
15 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

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. 

Reading comprehension must not be your forte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
On 6/4/2018 at 1:21 PM, White Crane Feather said:

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. 

Hi WCF

 I came to the conclusion that for some people, logic is like having a marriage, it can be really great or not and one tends to overlook some issues rather than objectively deal with them. Love is blind my friend, alas.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Reading comprehension must not be your forte.

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

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

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.

Crap, wall of text coming. 

I can't seem to find a way to change the font down. 

Hmmmm I'm not sure you are following me. I have applied the same rules to a potential creator even suggested how it may be created  and the logical conclusion of those rules without an assumed interjection. We better stop here and define what we mean by "creator." Please don't confuse me with those making arguments from a  religious point of view. That's not what this is. I could care less about the old definitions or assumptions of what God or gods should be or what proved those things to be wrong. We are way passed that. Its quite illogical to think that because old superstitions were put to rest that somehow answers the intelligence question, and it's easy to do but also riddled with bias to assume that what may fit into some definition of God or gods cannot exist by shear virtue that previous definitions have been proven to be fable. 

Thre are two types of intelligent creator we can analyze. One creator some how has created existence itself. I think we can both agree that this logically impossible. No god even an almost omnipotent one can thwart logic. Not even the God of Abraham and Allah himself can make 1+1= 53. This negates a god that created existence itself obviously because it had to exist in order to create it. 

We are left with the only possible kind of god and that is one that is created or because nature is eternal can have existed side by side with nature. 

A. "All things require creation" Something/s does not require creation even from no intelligent process, and either all things emanate from this or it's some sort of cycle. In a cycle all things would manifest from a previous part of the cycle. 

B. "Only some things require creation" I think it's pretty clear that some things do need to be designed. The iPhone I'm using for example. Without intelligence nature isn't just going to make one by accident, but as I have already mentioned there is at least one fundamental (thing, process, law), whatever, that does not. The laws of existence itself if you will. 

C. "All things don't require creation." All things come from something, and there is a final something that all things emanate from or, again, each moment of existence is one step in a cycle. I think those are our only two options. 

I think you are trying to pin me down to an Abraham like creator god, and although I'm not discounting the possibility of a god totally above nature, I'm going with Thomas Aquinas on this one. If there is a God, that god must be subject to nature. "Natural Law." I think he called it. Now he may have had something different in mind, but his thought process was admirable and I think accurate for this discussion. 

My first argument was to demonstrate that what we know about nature will inevitably lead to something our more new age brothers and sisters might recognize as divine, or other spiritualities like Native American spiritualities might recognize as the great spirit. 

What do we know for sure then?

1) We know something is eternal. Nothing can't exist by virtue of the fact that if nothing existed it would in fact be something. What are  we talking about here? What is eternal? Well existence itself must be eternal, and how does that existence manifest? See 2.

2) We know that the uncertainty principle seems to be the underlying property of nature. Now. There may be some framework/schafholding that supports even that, but we are at the limits of our current probing abilities, and we are sticking with what we know to be true anyway. The unctertainty principle is responsible for everything. It's the principle behind quantum fluctuations, quantum tunneling, zero point energy/spacial foam/ manifestation of virtual particles etc etc. These in turn manifest everything else. Most scientist seem to agree that the creation of matter at the Big Bang was the result of a rare quantum fluctuation. A random but massive excitation in the right quantum fields. ( is a quantum field a thing? We only know of it as a mathematical distribution) All the natural expression of the uncertainty principle. Atheists should be loving this, because it completely eliminates any need for an intelligent designer unless it is hiding behind the uncertainty principle because that is all we really need for a start. Not so fast though, the uncertainty principal creates conditions that do look like a natural tool that even human creators use to uphold simulated realities. Strikingly so... but that is for latter. 

3) We know that evolution guides that which is manifested by nature. Natural selection is a powerfully simple idea that leads to great complexity. Nothing can continue to exist unless it has bumped into a way to continue its existence. Everything is rolling down the hill after the BB, but some things like rocks thrown out into intergalactic space may maintain form for billions of years and things like DNA fight off entropy as best it can by copying itself. Really the end game is that nothing can be around unless it has been successful at maintaining its existence. It's been 13.8 billion years. That's plenty of time for everything to fall into relative stability. At the end... the very end with predicted heat death, can something remain besides spread out wayward photons as the final black hole evaporated as Hawking radiation. The vacuum will still be here, quantum fluctuations will still be happening, and as evolution dictates only they the things that can remain will. 

 

In eternity there is bound to be life that accomplishes this unless it's completely impossible, which it might be. After all, the existence of a giant planet made of gold is physically possible, but because there is no physical process for its existence, it cannot exist anywhere naturally unless some alien civilization made one.  But, we don't know as of yet if there are thresholds (like the most possible gold that can accumulate on its own) of how far intelligence can evolve. We nearly already know the physics and biology to conquer the galaxy, what if we make it past a billion years as a species with continued progress? What will our technology, knowledge, and intelligence look like? 

 

Anyway. When we look at these constants, Eternal & Evolution, Logically a default picture emerges. An entity that has been evolving from and eternity ago if it's conscious, is going to look very much like a god wether we like what we find or not. Now there is no reason to consider that it created us either. We may simply be another product of evolution, but that old alien turned universal conscience or spirit may just nudge things around a bit. 

 

Regardless. We would call it god or divine, its a logical if not certain outcome given what we know about nature. Unless of course there is a threshold on how far intelligent life can evolve, but this is another entity we must assume. 

 

The possibility of there being a god or gods or at least beings that would look that way to us outweighs the possibility of there not being anything. At least until we find a reason that it shouldn't be. Aversion to the possibility simply because science triumphed over old superstition is an unfortunate bias. This isn't about superstition this is about logical outcomes. 

 

As I mentioned before there is evidence that even the uncertainty principal is a feature of design, and still yet human experience may even hint that we are consciously connected to....well something. We can even make predictions. 

 

Whatever your personal beliefs are if we apply Occam's razor, there is most likely some sort of intelligence that at least some people would consider a god. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi WCF

 I came to the conclusion that for some people, logic is like having a marriage, it can be really great or not and one tends to overlook some issues rather than objectively deal with them. Love is blind my friend, alas.

jmccr8

Hmmm yeah logic is an unfortunate tool for confirmation bias aswell. It tends to stop being used one a perceived conclusion is reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
25 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

We know something is eternal. Nothing can't exist by virtue of the fact that if nothing existed it would in fact be something.

This seems a little word-gamey to me, WCF.  "Nothing exists' can be rephrased to get around your point, it's the same thing as saying, 'there is no such thing as existence'.  That doesn't work well with your logic here, since 'if there is no such thing as existence then that would in fact be something' doesn't make much sense.

(Weird on the big font in your posts, when I quote you it comes out fine like the above)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

No-thing might have been a better term to use, instead of nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This seems a little word-gamey to me, WCF.  "Nothing exists' can be rephrased to get around your point, it's the same thing as saying, 'there is no such thing as existence'.  That doesn't work well with your logic here, since 'if there is no such thing as existence then that would in fact be something' doesn't make much sense.

(Weird on the big font in your posts, when I quote you it comes out fine like the above)

Well I don't know any other way to put it. What we have as "nothing" now is pure vacuum. But even that vacuum is full of energy in the form of virtual particles which are actually real particles that can exert force but just annihilate each other. So yes. There is no evidence that there is a true state of nothingness. I imagine if there was... well existence would not exist. In essence "nothing" is a self describing word because it can't exist. This of course means that there has always been something. An eternal virtual particle soup maybe. Your guess is as good as mine, but there is no reason to assume the vast vacum had a beginning. 

Yeah when I get on a binge like that I write in my notes app because my phone can accidentally erase things in the fields here on the forum. It always pastes to large and for some reason I can't even select it to lower the font. 

 

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

I imagine if there was... well existence would not exist. 

I think we agree then. I'm with you on the above, I may have just misinterpreted how you phrased it originally.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think we agree then. I'm with you on the above, I may have just misinterpreted how you phrased it originally.

Thats awesome because it establishes a base property of the "universe/multiverse" that we agree on. That property is infinite existence. That also happens to be a common property of what people consider to be god. That doesn't mean we should assume it's reality though, of course, but if we can establish that eternal intelligence/consciousness is or isn't a likely outcome, then we are getting somewhere. 

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
22 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

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?

How about: I don't know yet, but I am sure we will find out.

 

That seems much more rational to me, than saying "I don't know,, therefore god"

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

How about: I don't know yet, but I am sure we will find out.

 

That seems much more rational to me, than saying "I don't know,, therefore god"

Indeed. But claiming you can't know when you don't know is just as bad. Another assumption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:44 PM, White Crane Feather said:

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

and what evidence would that consist of?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Indeed. But claiming you can't know when you don't know is just as bad. Another assumption. 

and who said 'we can't know"?

And maybe, I can't know because I don't have the answer, and the answer won't be discovered until long after I am dead.

Again, it is a rational position to hold whereas I feel your position is rather nebulous.

 

For example, Da Vinci dreamt of, and designed flying machines, but didn't have the technology to realize those dreams. The dream became reality centuries after his death.  but his premises were grounded in analytical and rational thought.

He didn't have all the answers, but I'm sure that he believed we (as a race) would have them,, in time.

Edited by Jodie.Lynne
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

and who said 'we can't know"?

And maybe, I can't know because I don't have the answer, and the answer won't be discovered until long after I am dead.

Again, it is a rational position to hold whereas I feel your position is rather nebulous.

You are quoting me from a previous discussion where the assertion was made that the question of god is a non question. I was disagreeing with that when you chimed in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
5 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

and what evidence would that consist of?

You should be reading the thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 minute ago, White Crane Feather said:

You should be reading the thread. 

summarize it for me. I don't have the extra time available to wade through 25 pages of text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
4 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

You are quoting me from a previous discussion where the assertion was made that the question of god is a non question. I was disagreeing with that when you chimed in. 

I am quoting you from this thread featherhead. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

summarize it for me. I don't have the extra time available to wade through 25 pages of text.

Hahha it's complicated and I don't have time to rewrite it. Hahahah it's also not done yet. We are still trying to get passed the first part.   There is a lot more. LG and I are on our way but that is because he is one of the most reasonable skeptics on this forum. 

yes this thread and a response I was making to xenofish. 

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.