Why call him a God?

[danydandan]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I searched for proof of this statement and actually came up with a wide variety of viewpoints from physicists but found nothing about Berkley physicists stating that they have used physics to refute an afterlife.  Do you have a link?  

There is no actual evidence either way. But if you assume the laws of physics are universal and you take one; say the conservation of energy incorporating entropy. Well by taking that into account alone the existence of an afterlife we can even detect is basically impossible. 

That's not to say it doesn't exist, just that it's highly unlikely. 

[White Crane Feather]

I’m not a christian, but it’s pretty simple to answer in a couple of ways.

1) Duality is necessary for good as well. You can’t have heroism without villainy. You can’t have compassion without suffering. You can’t good without bad. You can’t have pleasure without pain. Consciousness is all about differentials. A nanny god would indeed stop the horrors of the world, but it would also prevent the best parts of humanity.

2) A simulation programmer/god just wouldn’t care. Suffering is apart of evolution and we wouldn’t be conscious at all without a tremendous amount of historical death and suffering. 

Even the Christian God is still subject to logic, as saint Thomas Aquinas taught. It simply may not be logically possible to have good without bad. 

Still yet Christianity teaches that the “meek shall inherit the earth” Their answer is probably that, yes people suffer on earth, but they will dominate spiritually for eternity. Ultimately it may be a small price to pay under that theology. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

42 minutes ago, danydandan said:

There is no actual evidence either way. But if you assume the laws of physics are universal and you take one; say the conservation of energy incorporating entropy. Well by taking that into account alone the existence of an afterlife we can even detect is basically impossible. 

That's not to say it doesn't exist, just that it's highly unlikely. 

I disagree. I would argue and bet that some sort of eternal life is much more probable. It may not be heaven or an underworld, but there are really only two types of existences that lead to eternal death. 1) a creator god allows you to be destroyed either for misdeeds or non worship. 2) Only one Big Bang has ever happened and ever will happen again. All other scenarios lead to some sort of eternal life.

I find both one and two highly unlikely. 

 

 

[danydandan]

26 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

I disagree. I would argue and bet that some sort of eternal life is much more probable. It may not be heaven or an underworld, but there are really only two types of existences that lead to eternal death. 1) a creator god allows you to be destroyed either for misdeeds or non worship. 2) Only one Big Bang has ever happened and ever will happen again. All other scenarios lead to some sort of eternal life.

I find both one and two highly unlikely. 

 

 

How exactly would you argue this?

[White Crane Feather]

47 minutes ago, danydandan said:

How exactly would you argue this?

With words. 

[Habitat]

6 hours ago, OverSword said:

You don’t know that to be true. Consider this. If you are a simulated person that simulation exists within creation. Who’s to say that God, supposing he is real, didn’t cause the simulated souls to be created through him influencing programmers? Just another reason why I like playing with this idea. The levels of what could be true are endless.

The question I posed elsewhere is apposite, a simulation of what ? I really think this simulation idea is a distraction born of the era we live in, and is no answer to the riddle of existence, whatsoever.

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

With words. 

So you cannot be arsed to discuss it. What exactly was your point in posting in the first place then?

[White Crane Feather]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The question I posed elsewhere is apposite, a simulation of what ? I really think this simulation idea is a distraction born of the era we live in, and is no answer to the riddle of existence, whatsoever.

Well it cant be an “answer” without proof, but it does answer some very interesting questions. There is also some striking evidence in nature.

Edited December 4, 2019 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So you cannot be arsed to discuss it. What exactly was your point in posting in the first place then?

Hahaha I’m sorry. It just that your reply was short. Let’s just start here. If there are only finite ways in arranging subatomic particles, then in an infinite existence, those arrangements will repeat themselves eternally. This means that a person’s life is a constant and will indeed never end. Not exactly an after life, but an eternal existence never the less. 

That is only one possibility. There are others. The ones that guarantee a finite existence just happen to be the most implausible. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by White Crane Feather

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, White Crane Feather said:

Well it’s cant be an “answer” without proof, but it does answer some very interesting questions. There is also some striking evidence in nature.

It just delays by one step, the question, by interposing a "simulator(s)". Where did it/they come from ? All these speculations derive from the assumption that "creation", whatever its author, ought to be understandable, rationally,. I believe that to be  false, and the 'proof' is contained in the very word, "rational", itself.

[White Crane Feather]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It just delays by one step, the question, by interposing a "simulator(s)". Where did it/they come from ? All these speculations derive from the assumption that "creation", whatever its author, ought to be understandable, rationally,. I believe that to be  false, and the 'proof' is contained in the very word, "rational", itself.

Well.... it doesn't really matter if it delays our understanding of fundamental reality or not. Certainly there is one somewhere. It’s just that we must consider ourselves the average. The likely bet is that we are in one, and it gets exponentially more likely if we can produce one. 

[Habitat]

8 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

You have a really terrible issue. Your first statement is completely wrong.

I don't believe god exists. For plenty of reasons that do not include said being "complying with my directive."

Apparently your reading comprehension skill are somewhat poor. I said earlier that I don't want good or bad to happen. I simply understand that both do happen. How do you conclude I want divine intervention to make things better?

I DON'T BELIEVE A GOD EXISTS. 

How in the name of this nonexistent entity, could I want something I don't believe in to change anything?

As for being a malcontent, I don't think you know what that means and are just trying to find a sly way to be insulting. As usual.

As for you last sentence, I have no idea what that gibberish is supposed to mean.

You don't know what I meant about the morality of your and my ancestors dispossessing native peoples of their lands ? You told me about your high moral standards, but it seems when you are a beneficiary of questionable morals, the camera goes to soft focus. Listen, you are trying to make an argument that "bad" things happening, makes the "god proposition" less likely, but you are so "in the bubble" you can't even see that judgements of good and bad have no absolute application. That is apt to happen, when the idea insinuates itself, that you are really the centre of existence.

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Well.... it doesn't really matter if it delays our understanding of fundamental reality or not. Certainly there is one somewhere. It’s just that we must consider ourselves the average. The likely bet is that we are in one, and it gets exponentially more likely if we can produce one. 

I really think this idea of a simulation is socially corrosive. People play computer games that involve acts that are anti-social in the extreme, but of course it is only a game, like kids once played with toy guns and "shot" one another for no apparent need. But if the idea becomes that "real life" is just an artificial representation, then morals really don't matter, do they ? 

[+Hammerclaw]

Let's see. Realty is a creation of some immensely powerful, unknown creator. Now, where have we heard that, before? Come on in the back door God, or whatever you call yourself. Our resident secular philosophers and pseudo scientists have erected you a shiny new temple.

[+OverSword]

36 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The question I posed elsewhere is apposite, a simulation of what ? I really think this simulation idea is a distraction born of the era we live in, and is no answer to the riddle of existence, whatsoever.

Maybe, but I remember when I was a kid, before people had computers in their homes, thinking maybe this is some kind of prison of the mind and we are all in here for some crime and our real bodies are hooked up to a machine and when we die our sentences are over and we can resume our lives in the wonderful real world.

[Habitat]

Anything that tends toward letting people off the hook of personal responsibility, will appeal to a great many.

[+OverSword]

40 minutes ago, Habitat said:

a simulation of what ?

A universe, reality, world.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Anything that tends toward letting people off the hook of personal responsibility, will appeal to a great many.

Abrogation of self responsibility is de rigueur, these days, my friend. They can always find "scientists" who'll back them up on it, too.

[+OverSword]

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Anything that tends toward letting people off the hook of personal responsibility, will appeal to a great many.

All religions that I know of are about acting correctly or being punished.

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

A universe, reality, world.

We might end up believing in "nested" realities. Some evidence already exists, with dreams.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

All religions that I know of are about acting correctly or being punished.

Perhaps that's a requirement by The Grand Simulator in your Simulated Universe. After all, it's all fake and doesn't have to make any sense.

[White Crane Feather]

18 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I really think this idea of a simulation is socially corrosive. People play computer games that involve acts that are anti-social in the extreme, but of course it is only a game, like kids once played with toy guns and "shot" one another for no apparent need. But if the idea becomes that "real life" is just an artificial representation, then morals really don't matter, do they ? 

Have you studied human history? Listen to Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast. Any will do. Particularly the one on historical torture if you can stomach it. But what happens on these games are merely manifestations of our shadow and it does happen in real life. The corrosive thing is to ignore it instead of master it. Moral’s of course are culturally relative as well. To evolve our culture we must go through these things. Ultimately a creator through programming might serve the same function as fearing a god may. If it is a pimply teen in a cosmic garage, he may not like it if you act bad, and might have a special simulation program just for you. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

All religions that I know of are about acting correctly or being punished.

And the simulated universe idea, short circuits that ? You can't be punished, because you really don't exist, beyond this simulation ? I see some heavy-duty psychology involved in this attraction to the simulation universe.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, White Crane Feather said:

Have you studied human history? Listen to Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast. Any will do. Particularly the one on historical torture if you can stomach it. But what happens on these games are merely manifestations of our shadow and it does happen in real life. The corrosive thing is to ignore it instead of master it. Moral’s of course are culturally relative as well. To evolve our culture we must go through these things. Ultimately a creator through programming might serve the same function as fearing a god may. If it is a pimply teen in a cosmic garage, he may not like it if you act bad, and might have a special simulation program just for you. 

You have anthropomorphized the simulator, can we really not escape the bubble of seeing everything as circling back to us ?

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Abrogation of self responsibility is de rigueur, these days, my friend. They can always find "scientists" who'll back them up on it, too.

 

29 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You don't know what I meant about the morality of your and my ancestors dispossessing native peoples of their lands ? You told me about your high moral standards, but it seems when you are a beneficiary of questionable morals, the camera goes to soft focus. Listen, you are trying to make an argument that "bad" things happening, makes the "god proposition" less likely, but you are so "in the bubble" you can't even see that judgements of good and bad have no absolute application. That is apt to happen, when the idea insinuates itself, that you are really the centre of existence.

Question: how are you defining your god proposition? 
 

Habit, you aren’t addressing the thesis of the argument at all.

Hint: how can you show that god does exist with facts.