What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I listen to others POV's when it's open for opinion, isn't something that's since been proven, or they're properly questioning currently knowledge.

Iacchus breaks rule number 1, and 2, in almost every post.

As for a fundamentalist - probably. But he sure has shown he's fundamentality wacko.

The universe is alive! it's an organism! consciousness is the universe!I would like to propose that Gaspars arm is actually part of my body. It's a fact so don't try to disprove it, it's right cuzz my mind won't let me think otherwise!

Here it is you don't even know the first thing about me and yet, you come across with all these accusations about my character, while spouting off all this "empirical" mumbo jumbo baloney, as if you were the renown expert on the matter (mumbo jumbo no doubt), and yet you don't know what the heck you're talking about! If that isn't subjectivism -- or, "obnoxious bias" at the very least -- then I don't know what is? ...

For the sake of consistency then, I recommend you take heed of your own advice.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Iacchus...

Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn.

A state of being which tells you that you exist -- and hence "consciousness."


And, similar to what wuliheron so aptly put it in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2102", the ground of your being, which is absolute ...

Originally posted by wuliheron
Some materialists like to assert that all we have is human perception of existence, but when we perceive the ground of our own being it is absolute. The world may not be flat as once was thought common knowledge, but I exist and my knowledge of my existence and participation in existence is absolute and irrefutable. I can pretend otherwise, but it is just a pretense.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn.

I don't really try to explain what God is, in as much as it involves experiencing the ground of my "own being." In which respect I can't say I know Him personally, but rather know of Him through my own life's experience and hence the understanding of myself. I also focus on the fact that I have a soul -- that part of me which is cognizant -- and, the fact that other souls exist as well, "as spirits." Which, I come into contact on a fairly frequent basis ...

Having said that, the fact that I have a soul, and other people do as well and, that there's another dimension the soul enters upon death, then it's not much more difficult to conclude that God exists in the "spiritual sense" as well. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous references of this sort in the Bible, as well as in other related materials.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by THE MIND
Gaspar,

especially for you:

From http://www.edgarcayce.org/edgar-cayce1.html


Throughout his life, Edgar Cayce claimed no special abilities nor did he ever consider himself to be some kind of twentieth-century prophet. The readings never offered a set of beliefs that had to be embraced, but instead focused on the fact that each person should test in his or her own life the principles presented. Though Cayce himself was a Christian and read the Bible from cover to cover every year of his life, his work was one that stressed the importance of comparative study among belief systems all over the world. The underlying principle of the readings is the oneness of all life, tolerance for all people, and a compassion and understanding for every major religion in the world.

Thank you for the brief biography of Edgar Casey. I'm guessing that you posted it because of my interest in consciousness and my proposition that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. Thus, through this interconnectedness, someone like Casey could see into the future, diagnose and cure illnesses, and communicate with disembodied spirits. And, although such phenomena have been "documented", you will find that many individuals who converse through the various threads of the Physics Forum will still be looking for "proof positive" at the end of the day.

My interest, however, is no so much on people like Casey who demonstrate "mind over matter"...but on the MECHANISM ITSELF.

Does INTENTION EFFECT RESULTS? Is the Universe CONSCIOUS? Is "God" a fanciful concept that stands in the way of our seeing the Universe ITSELF as a self-perpetuating and evolving Being?

While it may be commendable that Casey and others promote "tolerance, compassion and understanding for every major religion of the world" ...I believe it is ultimately more "useful" to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Why bother stressing "the importance of the comparative study of belief systems" if not to select those that make sense from those that simply pander to the weaknesses of our species.

For instance, there was a time when people thought that "God wanted" them to sacrifice each other...or their goats! ...or fly airplanes into buildings!

At some point, perhaps, we will come to understand that the "sacrifices" we need to make have to do with CHOOSING TO ACT in ways that are contrary to our darker natures.

Maybe some day everyone will "get" that we're here to REDEEM OURSELVES through CONSCIOUS REMEDIAL ACTIONS, rather than be "saved" from suffering the consequences of our actions by somebody ELSE'S sacrifice!

But that's another thread, which I'm tempted to start right now: Salvation vs. Self-Dedemption: the Spiritual Nature of Personal Responsibility...or Let's Stop Playing with Somebody Else's Chips!

But I digress.

 

[Mohaamad]

If we could define "God," "God" would not be God. God is kind of like pie (3.14...). He cannot be contained.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mohaamad
If we could define "God," "God" would not be God. God is kind of like pie (3.14...). He cannot be contained.

And WE are a piece of the pie!

 

[akhenaten]

Many people seem to see something quasi-mystical or at least significant about the fact that the value of Pi cannot be exactly determined. I think that an unlimited number of decimal places is a characteristic of an arbitrary value (like the Velocity of Light, or the Planck Length) not of a numerically significant one. If Pi had a value of exactly 3, wouldn't that be more puzzling and mysterious?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by akhenaten
Many people seem to see something quasi-mystical or at least significant about the fact that the value of Pi cannot be exactly determined. I think that an unlimited number of decimal places is a characteristic of an arbitrary value (like the Velocity of Light, or the Planck Length) not of a numerically significant one. If Pi had a value of exactly 3, wouldn't that be more puzzling and mysterious?

If I were you, I'd start a thread for the mathematically inclined.

 

[megashawn]

I thought pi was recently solved for using some supercomputer for a few years and printed like 500 some sheets of paper for the full length.

Then again I read so much stuff from so many sites, there's no telling.

Seems like it was FZ (again, could be wrong) that pi was wrong or something.


Anyhow, I think I stated my definition of god, which is similar to LA's and others, merely a figment of imagination.


M.Gaspar, your ideas are an interesting read, but I've a few questions for ya.

I was under the understanding that the universe was expanding infinitetly and the "Big Cruch" idea was essentially ruled out. If this is so, what does this do to your idea of an eternally evolving universe creature?

You say there is a spiritual plain within this being, and it seems you suggest that we are spirits inhabiting these physical parts (bodys) of the universe in order to have an expieriance. My question is, if this universe is aware of all its parts, then why is it we are not aware if your idea is 100% true?

And while you keep insisting your "Universe being" has been around forever in an infinite cycle, but this is no different then a christian responding to the "Where did god come from" with a simple "God has always been". So you don't really solve the problem, just attempt to step around it.



Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by.

I would like to hear your explanation of cannibalism. I would say that they are probably people who live in areas without much meat to eat, or maybe even food in general. Where is god for them? Why does god not stop this?

But an even better question is, how are we able to not be cannibals? Is it that, through evolution, we have developed from mere animal like mentalitys to a more reasonable mind? Is it your god? Or is it Survival of the fittest? Which is most observable?

But you insist that without your god, humanity would be like animals. Tell me then, how is it many past societys have formed, without the assistance of your god? Was it their god(s)?

I'd say it is that humans, just like any other creature, want to continue living. This would be the basis for cannibalism, if a person or persons were hungry enough, and no other option. We, look for other ways and treasure our fellow man or woman more so then to think of them as a piece of stake.

I bring up cannibalism as it is an act of people who do not believe in christianity type religions, probably have never heard of it, but yet your all powerfull god has failed to get the message to them, Hey, you can eat the apples now.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by megashawn
Anyhow, I think I stated my definition of god, which is similar to LA's and others, merely a figment of imagination.

While I do not like -- nor agree with -- the "common" conception of "God" ...I DO believe that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. I just don't believe that the Universe is "all-powerful" or "all-knowing" in that It can't "DO" anything OUTSIDE of the NATURAL PROCESSES of Its NATURAL SYSTEM ...AND...It DOESN'T KNOW how everything will "turn out" . (The whole "POINT" to Its existence, IMO, is to CREATE an EXPERIENCE for Itself...a very COMPLEX one that is DIFFERENT from all OTHER EXPERIENCES it has created during other INCARNATIONS.

But let's not call It "God". Let's call it the Universe. While we may ponder the existence of the former, we can feel at least a little more confident in the existence of the latter.

M.Gaspar, your ideas are an interesting read, but I've a few questions for ya.

I can't wait to answer ya...

I was under the understanding that the universe was expanding infinitetly and the "Big Cruch" idea was essentially ruled out. If this is so, what does this do to your idea of an eternally evolving universe creature?

Unfortunately, the current ideas about inflation are WRONG. Hopefully, YOU, Megashawn, are YOUNG ENOUGH to be here when the cosmologists finally figure out that the "Dark Energy" that is forcing the Universe OUTWARD will -- when the Universe begins to eventually cool as a RESULT of this expansion -- undergo a PHASE TRANSITION and will revert to "Dark MATTER" with its attendant all-encompassing GRAVITY. And, voila, La Crunch!

You say there is a spiritual plain within this being, and it seems you suggest that we are spirits inhabiting these physical parts (bodys) of the universe in order to have an expieriance. My question is, if this universe is aware of all its parts, then why is it we are not aware if your idea is 100% true?

First, I did not say there is a spiritual plane; I said I PREFER to believe that there is one. As to the second part of your question: I can be "aware" of my KNEE, but my knee might not be aware of ME. And YOUR knee is not aware of MY knee...tho, at some level, they MIGHT be.

Only the Universe ITSELF is "aware" of "everything"...which is not to say It CONTROLS everything ABSOLUTELY . The Universe is, IMO, a "product" of It's inherent FORCES, PROCESSES and INGREDIENTS...and nothing more.

And while you keep insisting your "Universe being" has been around forever in an infinite cycle, but this is no different then a christian responding to the "Where did god come from" with a simple "God has always been". So you don't really solve the problem, just attempt to step around it.

For ME, it is the "God scenario" that does not "solve the problem"...but seeing the Universe as an "eternally expanding and contracting entity of energy" allows one to IMAGINE the "life cycle" of something that we "KNOW" EXISTS!

Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by.

Actually, human beings have come up with some pretty LOUSY "standards" to live by IN THE NAME OF "GOD"! Human sacrifice! Airplanes into buildings! Holy wars.

IMO...little by little, via the PROCESS of REINCARNATION, we (and everything else?) learns COMPASSION (a "spiritual" quality?)..and then we come up with our OWN idea of what it takes to be our HIGHEST SELVES!

When we "get" that the only "stuggle" (the Jihad) is with our DARKER NATURES -- and that only WE can REDEEM OURSELVES -- that will be a step in the right direction with regard to the "spiritual evolution" of us...and the Universe at large (since we are It's creations and Its "agents").

 

[sage]

TO IACCHUS,
God is an illusion embedded in human psychology. Such an illusion exists as a product of evolution. Humans having such an illusion have a better chance of survival than those who don’t. There are plenty more examples like the illusion of “self” etc. I can prove this if you want me to.

"I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone ..." And yet the moment "always is," and that's what trandscends time -- i.e., through "the observer." This is what the focus of meditation is supposed to entail, tuning into the "stillness of moment," and using that as a springboard for one's "inner-experience."

Are you a poet or something. Emotion does not go well with logic. I don’t rely on personal experiences. Our brain can be tricked easily by chemical and electrical anomalies inside our body(hallucination is an extreme example). That’s why scientists use artificial recording instruments to gather facts. What I mean is PERSONAL EXPERIENCE "is not the same as" TRUTH

When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist.

Yes they do exist. But it’s not unique is it? Also every organism has a different standard set up. I am an ant queen commanding a vast colony under Los Angeles. Prove to me that the standard on which we ants live is superior to yours. In case you don’t know about the social structure of ants please inform me. I shall give you general information. As far as the general feeling of superiority of human way of living goes it is more like the reaction of a child who feels his little poem is the best in the world though it has neither rhyme nor rhythm.

TO GASPER
You have to produce evidence supporting your idea first before you can expect others to accept it. Anyway what’s wrong with an eternally existing but unconscious universe. What exactly does such a universe fail to explain that your conscious universe can. Anyway conscious and self are some of the illusions which like God has evolved through Darwinian selection in humans. That’s my feeling anyhow and I think I can show that such a scenario is more plausible than the one you say. Will elaborate if you wish.

TO LOGICAL ATHEIST

Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit

exactly which of the statements you have made above IS LOGICAL. Is this how you convince others that your ideas are true? If you want to promote atheism by a logical dialogue with theists you have to do better than emotional ranting. This is unbecoming of the name you have chosen for yourself. Don’t mind this rebuke, just feel you are wasting your talents of critical thinking which you undoubtedly posses.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by ...

I'd say it is that humans, just like any other creature, want to continue living. This would be the basis for cannibalism, if a person or persons were hungry enough, and no other option. We, look for other ways and treasure our fellow man or woman more so then to think of them as a piece of stake.

I bring up cannibalism as it is an act of people who do not believe in christianity type religions, probably have never heard of it, but yet your all powerfull god has failed to get the message to them, Hey, you can eat the apples now.

And yet we all partake in the flesh and blood of Christ during Communion now don't we? Is this not the nature of sacrifice, human or otherwise? To lay down your life that others might live?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS,

God is an illusion embedded in human psychology. Such an illusion exists as a product of evolution. Humans having such an illusion have a better chance of survival than those who don’t. There are plenty more examples like the illusion of “self” etc. I can prove this if you want me to.

I understand that your whole idea has been rationally deduced, but how do "you" really know?

Are you a poet or something. Emotion does not go well with logic. I don’t rely on personal experiences. Our brain can be tricked easily by chemical and electrical anomalies inside our body(hallucination is an extreme example). That’s why scientists use artificial recording instruments to gather facts. What I mean is PERSONAL EXPERIENCE "is not the same as" TRUTH

And yet the fact that we're human is really all we have to work with. Reality exists on both the left side (rational) and the right side (emotional) and is integrated in the middle. Why focus exclusively on the one side and forsake the other? Do you understand the meaning of neurosis?

Yes they do exist. But it’s not unique is it? Also every organism has a different standard set up. I am an ant queen commanding a vast colony under Los Angeles. Prove to me that the standard on which we ants live is superior to yours. In case you don’t know about the social structure of ants please inform me. I shall give you general information. As far as the general feeling of superiority of human way of living goes it is more like the reaction of a child who feels his little poem is the best in the world though it has neither rhyme nor rhythm.

I've created another thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764" which goes into my ideas further in detail, if you would care to take a look? Thanks!

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Unfortunately, the current ideas about inflation are WRONG. Hopefully, YOU, Megashawn, are YOUNG ENOUGH to be here when the cosmologists finally figure out that the "Dark Energy" that is forcing the Universe OUTWARD will -- when the Universe begins to eventually cool as a RESULT of this expansion -- undergo a PHASE TRANSITION and will revert to "Dark MATTER" with its attendant all-encompassing GRAVITY. And, voila, La Crunch!

This belief is based on faith.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
TO GASPER
You have to produce evidence supporting your idea first before you can expect others to accept it. Anyway what’s wrong with an eternally existing but unconscious universe. What exactly does such a universe fail to explain that your conscious universe can. Anyway conscious and self are some of the illusions which like God has evolved through Darwinian selection in humans. That’s my feeling anyhow and I think I can show that such a scenario is more plausible than the one you say. Will elaborate if you wish.

Actually, I do not "expect others to accept" my speculations. What fun would THAT be? I will, however, be making my case on the "A Conscious Universe?" thread...after reading some well-conceived materials pointed to by fellow poster "Ahkenaten" (MY initial cap. because he DESERVES it!) on that thread.
But, in general, I will ask: What's the point of EXISTENCE if one doesn't "know" it? And I "will elaborate if YOU wish" -- or do NOT wish -- when time permits.

TO LOGICAL ATHEIST

exactly which of the statements you have made above IS LOGICAL. Is this how you convince others that your ideas are true? If you want to promote atheism by a logical dialogue with theists you have to do better than emotional ranting. This is unbecoming of the name you have chosen for yourself. Don’t mind this rebuke, just feel you are wasting your talents of critical thinking which you undoubtedly posses.

Actually, there are those who HAD their "doubts" because Logical Atheist" offered very little in actual theories, speculations or facts. He was more content to lambaste others as in your well-chosen example. And this is ALSO why he is being referred to here in the past tense : his "thinking" was not "critical" to the threads.

And the name is "Gaspar"

 

[sage]

TO IACCHUS

I understand that your whole idea has been rationally deduced, but how do "you" really know?

I don’t. AND NOBODY DOES. And that includes you. All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!

And yet the fact that we're human is really all we have to work with. Reality exists on both the left side (rational) and the right side (emotional) and is integrated in the middle. Why focus exclusively on the one side and forsake the other? Do you understand the meaning of neurosis?

NEUROSIS-a nervous disorder; emotional instability.
Emotional instability usually means extremes of emotion. Anger, sadness, despair etc. extreme emotion hampers judgment. Such people cannot be depended upon to do things one would logically expect one to do. So how does it counter my statements? It seems to bolster it. I do not neglect the importance of emotions. But its role is different. Logic helps us to arrive at the best possible line of thought, emotion helps us to act on that thought. Logic tells you that helping the poor helps consolidate the society and so is beneficial to you, but it is during Christmas that your emotions are conducive enough to actually do such a thing. YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT. If you use emotions to arrive at the truth, you will never get there. It is because emotions like hatred and greed clouds our logic that we still kill each other though logically mutual cooperation is the best way towards progress and such cooperation could be achieved by emotions like love, tolerance and kindness. (please neglect the last rhetoric logically minded ones as it contains undefendable logical fallacies:)!)
I have seen your how do I know thread. I have also posted a reply. I suspect it is a bit complicated, let me know if you don't understand. Anyway my question as the ant queen stands.

TO GASPAR
SORRY FOR THE SPELLING MISTAKE. I wish you to elaborate on that vague reply.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by akhenaten
This belief is based on faith.

Not really.

Think about what causes certain phase transitions. Changes in temperature are among them.

And, isn't baryonic matter "simply" bound-up ENERGY resulting from the cool-down of the neonatal Universe?

True, I PREFER TO BELIEVE that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity is an ETERNAL CYCLE of expansion and contraction...because I PREFER TO BELIEVE that REINCARNATION is a NATURAL PROCESS of the Universe...

...but my thinking about how this might OCCUR -- especially in the face of current EXPANSION THEORIES -- has given rise, in my mind, to what I think is a viable POSSIBILITY.

Can't wait to get to those articles you recommended (all of which I saved, and two of which I've printed out) to see if anything therein supports this personal proposition.

And never accuse me of "having faith" again !

 

[M. Gaspar]

Sage:

I don't have time (at the moment) to read and process your post...but I will...with a response.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not really.

Think about what causes certain phase transitions. Changes in temperature are among them.

And, isn't baryonic matter "simply" bound-up ENERGY resulting from the cool-down of the neonatal Universe?

True, I PREFER TO BELIEVE that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity is an ETERNAL CYCLE of expansion and contraction...because I PREFER TO BELIEVE that REINCARNATION is a NATURAL PROCESS of the Universe...

...but my thinking about how this might OCCUR -- especially in the face of current EXPANSION THEORIES -- has given rise, in my mind, to what I think is a viable POSSIBILITY.

Can't wait to get to those articles you recommended (all of which I saved, and two of which I've printed out) to see if anything therein supports this personal proposition.

And never accuse me of "having faith" again !

Of course you can believe what you want, but as soon as you start believing something because you prefer to, you obviously surrender impartiality and rationality. I'm seriously considering panpsychism because, although it is a pretty weird idea, it does seem to have the potential to explain what all other theories of mind have failed to do. As for reincarnation, I find it quite implausible and begs many questions. For a start it would require some sort of immortal soul, which is a problematic concept in itself.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by akhenaten
Of course you can believe what you want, but as soon as you start believing something because you prefer to, you obviously surrender impartiality and rationality. I'm seriously considering panpsychism because, although it is a pretty weird idea, it does seem to have the potential to explain what all other theories of mind have failed to do. As for reincarnation, I find it quite implausible and begs many questions. For a start it would require some sort of immortal soul, which is a problematic concept in itself.

When I use the term "I prefer to believe..." I am simply putting my cards on the table. Most people say they "believe" something when, in fact, they just PREFER to believe it

For instance, because you find the concept of an "immortal soul" "problematic" you "prefer to believe" that reincarnation is implausible. Others have no such problem with the "existence" of the "soul" ..and yet, among these, some do NOT "believe" in reincarnation. Still others, like myself, find that the "soul" MAY be EXTRANEOUS to the equation...banking on CONSCIOUSNESS itself to "carry the ball".

What is your view of "eternity"? Do you "believe" the Universe is "eternal"? After you answer this, I will say more about reincarnation.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS
All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!

I, too, have "problems" with the "existence" of "God" -- that is, "God" as the commonly held concept. I DO "believe" in the "existence" of the Universe, however, and have "observed" "indications" that It is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. Some of us will explore this -- theoretically or empirically, if possible -- and some will hold to other "beliefs".

Shall we agree that the "function" of this (and other) Forum(s) is to kick IDEAS around...but not each other (Super Fr33k excluded)? At what point -- in actually -- do we EVER "change our minds" anyway?

YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT.

Actually, you don't need "emotions" to "do the right thing". Sometimes -- if we are asking the question "What is our highest way of being?" -- we need to do just the OPPOSITE of what our emotions would direct us to do. For instance, if you fall in love with someone who is married, you're emotions might tell you to do one thing, but your "ethical/moral logic" can direct you to do another: but we must be willing to make the SACRIFICE of doing what's "right". The same with all other "temptations".

IMO, people need to know that they have the power to separate EMOTIONS from the ACTIONS they CHOOSE to take. Emotions alone make poor rudders.

TO GASPAR
SORRY FOR THE SPELLING MISTAKE. I wish you to elaborate on that vague reply.

Me? Vague? To what do you refer?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS

I don’t. AND NOBODY DOES. And that includes you. All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!

And yet the fact that we can acknowledge we don't know, becomes the very criteria by which we acknowledge we do know. Wouldn't it be possible to say, that we at least know this much? ... Hey it's a beginning, and indeed the very place to start.

NEUROSIS-a nervous disorder; emotional instability.
Emotional instability usually means extremes of emotion. Anger, sadness, despair etc. extreme emotion hampers judgment. Such people cannot be depended upon to do things one would logically expect one to do. So how does it counter my statements? It seems to bolster it. I do not neglect the importance of emotions. But its role is different. Logic helps us to arrive at the best possible line of thought, emotion helps us to act on that thought. Logic tells you that helping the poor helps consolidate the society and so is beneficial to you, but it is during Christmas that your emotions are conducive enough to actually do such a thing. YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT. If you use emotions to arrive at the truth, you will never get there. It is because emotions like hatred and greed clouds our logic that we still kill each other though logically mutual cooperation is the best way towards progress and such cooperation could be achieved by emotions like love, tolerance and kindness. (please neglect the last rhetoric logically minded ones as it contains undefendable logical fallacies:)!)

And what about the "lack of emotion?" Isn't that something that's deemed neurotic as well?

I have seen your how do I know thread. I have also posted a reply. I suspect it is a bit complicated, let me know if you don't understand. Anyway my question as the ant queen stands.

My reply is in waiting ...

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
When I use the term "I prefer to believe..." I am simply putting my cards on the table. Most people say they "believe" something when, in fact, they just PREFER to believe it.

For instance, because you find the concept of an "immortal soul" "problematic" you "prefer to believe" that reincarnation is implausible. Others have no such problem with the "existence" of the "soul" ..and yet, among these, some do NOT "believe" in reincarnation.

No I don't accept the suggestion that all beliefs are a matter of preference and its implication that all views are equally justified, and reasonable. Only those beliefs based on reason and evidence are justifiable.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Still others, like myself, find that the "soul" MAY be EXTRANEOUS to the equation...banking on CONSCIOUSNESS itself to "carry the ball".

You'll have to explain yourself here. I'm pretty cautious about this idea, but the only sense in which any sort of reincarnation is meaningful to me is IF and that's still a fairly big IF, the universe has inherent psychic qualities then we can all be regarded as fragments of a 'supermind' - in that sense we already are incarnated as all conscious entities that have ever lived - we just don't have the connectivity to experience it. Does that make any sense?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What is your view of "eternity"? Do you "believe" the Universe is "eternal"? After you answer this, I will say more about reincarnation.

I have nothing on which to base such a belief. I tend to go with whichever cosmological theory has the best evidence at the time.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by akhenaten
No I don't accept the suggestion that all beliefs are a matter of preference and its implication that all views are equally justified, and reasonable. Only those beliefs based on reason and evidence are justifiable.

Most "theories" are preceded by "reason" then followed by "evidence"...sometimes after many, many moons of disbelief. My speculations are based on a series of thoughts that led me to the proposition that all things have an element of consciousness.

Then, much to my surprise, YOU, akhenaten, link me to articles from better minds than mine who have come to the same POSSIBILITY. I haven't gotten to these articles yet, but I have to assume they are making a better case than I am. In fact, I'm going to have to FORCE MYSELF to RECONSTRUCT my thinking if I want to invite others to follow my "logic".

You'll have to explain yourself here. I'm pretty cautious about this idea, but the only sense in which any sort of reincarnation is meaningful to me is IF and that's still a fairly big IF, the universe has inherent psychic qualities then we can all be regarded as fragments of a 'supermind' - in that sense we already are incarnated as all conscious entities that have ever lived - we just don't have the connectivity to experience it. Does that make any sense?

No, that's not the thread of my thinking on the topic of reincarnation...that we've already "incarnated as all conscious entities...(but) don't have the connectivity to experience it."

I think of consciousness both as a "property" and a "substance"...and AS a "substance" it has ACCRETED into dynamic, coherent systems...just like baryonic matter.

But, instead of "mass" it "accretes" into "networks" of "thought"...which, over time, gives us the "human mind"...and all other minds, as well. These "networks" are NOT CONFINED to physicality...and "survive" even after a "host body" "recycles" its atoms.

Let me dispense with stating my "preferences" and simply say the I BELIEVE that the whole "purpose" of the Universe is to HAVE AN EXPERIENCE...a real complex one, including the life experiences of everything that ever lived/lives/or will live (including the "experience" of ROCKS!).

These networks "grow" -- or "coallesce" -- via incarnations...and I am doing a lousy job of explaining what I mean.

However, I am not so much interested in our individual incarnations...but the PROCESS of REINCARNATION for the UNIVERSE at large. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be "in the mood" to say much more about this now.

I tend to go with whichever cosmological theory has the best evidence at the time.

IMO, the "inflationary model" of the Universe STINKS, making very poor use of eternity!

What is it about my "phase transition" proposition that doesn't make sense to you ...that "Dark Energy" will cool to "Dark Matter" and cause the Crunch?

Hope you're young enough to be around when cosmologists finally figure it out...and that you'll remember that M. Gaspar "got there first"!

 

[sage]

TO IACCHUS
It seems that our ways of thinking have diverged so much that we cannot understand what the other is saying. I confess that I do not understand a word of your reply, and from the little that I did understand, it seems you have missed my point entirely. So I think we should begin this debate from a more basic level. First let us state what we believe to be true. Then let us state why we believe what we do as clearly as possible. Then let us debate the strength and weaknesses of our beliefs. First my turn.
1)God-does not exist
2)soul-does not exist
3)consciousness-can be loosely defined as a set of interactions between the neurons of our brain that helps us to ‘ become aware’ of our surroundings and react to it suitably. This process of becoming aware has been explained in detail in the example of the cat. As you see the brain only needs to be programmed to memorize and making associations in order to ‘become aware’. This programming has been achieved through evolution. No supernatural explanation need to be sought here.(see thread HOW DO I KNOW? In philosophy forum)
4)mind-it is also the same as consciousness. Hence can be defined as a set of interactions between neurons in the brain.
5)evidence-I accept only objective evidence as opposed to personal experience which is unreliable especially if it occurs during meditation as it is a pseudo dream-like state.
in short I believe that everything on this universe can be explained without invoking god, soul,spirituality etc. about which objective evidence is lacking. The world makes perfect sense without invoking an omnipotent creator. Humans do not require souls to explain their actions and motives .
next your turn to state your beliefs. Please be clear. After that I shall explain the basis of my belief.

TO GASPAR

But, in general, I will ask: What's the point of EXISTENCE if one doesn't "know" it? And I "will elaborate if YOU wish" -- or do NOT wish -- when time permits.

well, that was vague enough, don’t you think?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS
5)evidence-I accept only objective evidence as opposed to personal experience which is unreliable especially if it occurs during meditation as it is a pseudo dream-like state.

I am the summation of "all" of my experience. Have you checked my reply in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764&perpage=15&pagenumber=2"

 

[M. Gaspar]

To Sage:

Oh.

Later.

 

[sage]

JUST STATE YOUR BELIEFS ONE BY ONE IN A REPLY.WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THEM LATER.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
JUST STATE YOUR BELIEFS ONE BY ONE IN A REPLY.WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THEM LATER.

Great idea!

"God" -- as a commonly held concept -- is bogus. Apparently, we, as a species, has a deeply imbedded need for "hero worship" and a propensity for "ritual". We also love to make up stories...and then BELIEVE them!

I prefer to "believe in" the Universe Itself -- NOT as "God" -- but as a "living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts." And, additionally, as "an eternal Entity of ENERGY that's EVOLVING...with and through its "parts" (us included).

The Universe (unlike "God") is NOT "all-powerful" or "all-knowing": It must "work with" the inherent forces, processes and ingredients of Its own "body"...and It hasn't a "clue" what we -- or anything else -- is going to do next . Why would It WANT to: It's "out to have an Experience"...not "walk through a pre-determined play"!

It does know (is SELF-AWARE) of everything that's going on...but the element of INTENTION (of coherent sub-systems like ourselves) on the "lynchpin" of "randomness" keeps It from "knowing" the future.

It's "life cycle" is actually (ha, ha) a series of endless cycles twixt Big Bangs and Big Crunches...existing as a Singularity only "momentarilly" in between .

One does not have to "pray to" or "worship" the Universe. One may simply "communicate with" and "appreciate" our Source.

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

?Huh?

I cannot understand how ANY rational mind (especially one that studies science) could deny the existence of a creator?

If you ask me, denial of the fact that a God exists is in most cases a reaction to the guilt one feels as a result of amoral behaviour.
If anyone were to think rationally about the question
(which as scientists we should be doing), we would conclude that without a doubt that there must be a God, and the universe must have been created.

- Sorry I'm confused, was I meant to post this here, or simply state my beleifs here?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
I cannot understand how ANY rational mind (especially one that studies science) could deny the existence of a creator?

If you ask me, denial of the fact that a God exists is in most cases a reaction to the guilt one feels as a result of amoral behaviour.
If anyone were to think rationally about the question
(which as scientists we should be doing), we would conclude that without a doubt that there must be a God, and the universe must have been created.

i do not understand why you are saying this. why must a scientist believe there is a god? and how is it a rational belief in any way?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
I cannot understand how ANY rational mind (especially one that studies science) could deny the existence of a creator?

If you ask me, denial of the fact that a God exists is in most cases a reaction to the guilt one feels as a result of amoral behaviour.
If anyone were to think rationally about the question
(which as scientists we should be doing), we would conclude that without a doubt that there must be a God, and the universe must have been created.

- Sorry I'm confused, was I meant to post this here, or simply state my beleifs here?

Perhaps you're stating your beliefs, but your prejudices and lack of knowledge of most atheists are showing. No insult intended.

The vast majority of people in jail (in the US) are christian. This is not an aspersion against christianity, only a reflection of the population. It is, however, a demonstration that many people can believe in god, yet be quite amoral. Thus, rejecting a belief in god is hardly needed to be amoral.

The vast majority of atheists I know, became such because they saw not reason to conclude there was a deity and their character would not allow them to live a lie by acting as if there were. The fact that they are seriously derided because of this belief, yet stuck to their convictions, is some evidence to their character. The vast majority of atheist have a strong moral code, it's just not one given to them by the bible. The large majority of rules they live under are probably identical to yours, minus the worshipping the lord and not cussing on sundays. To claim they are atheist because they want to be amoral is both a cheap shot and is, intellectually, quite lazy.


I have studied science and religion. The criteria I use to consider what's true is such that I cannot say I believe in a god. I am sure you're experiences lead you to believe in a god, but mine are at least as strong in the opposite direction. One thing you may not be taking into account it that all your observations are colored by your belief in a deity (as mine, perhaps, in the opposite direction).

I have seen nothing, whatsoever, that would lead me to conclude there is a deity. If you have evidence, by all means, I am open to a discussion of the topic, keeping in mine that it needs to be evidence we both consider valid. Biblical quotes would be less the worthless in convincing me of anything.

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

There are so many reasons why a God must have been involved in the creation of the universe, that I wouldn't even know where to start! You must have heard all the arguments?
Do you really want me to list them?

I will give a few points here, but these are only based on scientific evidence (which I'm sure you'll find it easier to relate to) I could give various historical arguments, as well as personal arguments which convince me that there is a God.
Each of these points have numerous sub points but I'm not going to list all of them.

For one thing the odds of a stable universe forming at all out of the big bang are incredibly small, and dependent on a number of parameters.

For another the conditions a planet must meet in order to sustain life are extremely tight!

For another the formation of complicated Organic Compounds eg. Proteins, from their elements is an extremely complicated process. While it might be possible for these to form by themselves, the odds of the right conditions occurring for this to happen are also extremely small.

For another thing, it is ludicrous to think the formation of life (or organic beings that have self-awareness, are able to think and reason) from organic compounds, could just happen by itself.

I can't understand how anyone would believe that chemicals can suddenly get clever, and figure out a way of carrying out the processes that the simplest living things do, such as: eat, react, digest, excrete, reproduce, defend itself, move around, sense its environment, sense similar organisms, etc.
And then on top of all of this, over the years these beings begin to refine themselves, they become more advanced, until ultimately, they are so advanced that they can invent, think, reason, feel, experience emotion, comprehend their environment and how and why the world around works.

You surely don't need me to tell you that there is no possible way ALL of this could have happened by itself, by chance.

Sure I believe in evolution to an extent, there are a lot of surprisingly common features between all the mamals for example.
I believe the big bang, or something like it must have happened, to trigger everything we know into existence. But I cannot believe that all this could have happened by itself, without some greater being controlling it.

I'm happy to enter into this discussion with anyone, but as you can see, its a huge discussion! So I suggest we talk about only one point at a time

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Sorry It appears we posted at the same time, so I didn't see your post before I made mine!

I'm really sorry If I've insulted you in anything I've said, I didn't intend to. (Maybe I shouldn't have expressed my views in such a harsh manner)

I'm not suggesting that this is proof that there must be a God,
I'm only saying that with all this before us, I battle to believe otherwise.

Thanx for replying though
I look forward to continuing
this discussion with you!

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
There are so many reasons why a God must have been involved in the creation of the universe, that I wouldn't even know where to start! You must have heard all the arguments?
Do you really want me to list them?

I will give a few points here, but these are only based on scientific evidence (which I'm sure you'll find it easier to relate to) I could give various historical arguments, as well as personal arguments which convince me that there is a God.
Each of these points have numerous sub points but I'm not going to list all of them.

For one thing the odds of a stable universe forming at all out of the big bang are incredibly small, and dependent on a number of parameters.

With regards to the post that followed - no offense taken.


This assumes a number of things, but I'll address the crux right off.
Probability.

To win the lottery is much less likely than getting hit by lightning, but people still win. The problem with probabilities, is it says nothing about a single instance, once that instance is there, unless the instance is impossible. One more example, If I ask you to pick a number between 0 and a google, and you do so at random, the chances of you picking that number are 1 in a google - but you still picked that number, irrespective of the probabilities. It may be that our universe is improbable, but we don't know that we didn't occur anyway. We also don't know if innumerable other universes are and have been created with all sorts of properties, ours with the properties allowing life, such that in this universe we can wonder how we came about, while in the others no life is available to ponder it in that universe.

The second question that arises concerns an implicit assumption - that many of the characteristics/laws/constants of this universe were independent of the creation event, therefore the values are obtained randomly. This, I need point out, is an assumption. Being an assumption, this pushes your argument into the 'god of the gaps' flaw of explaining creation - i.e. since we don't know the reason, god did it.

For another the conditions a planet must meet in order to sustain life are extremely tight!

For another the formation of complicated Organic Compounds eg. Proteins, from their elements is an extremely complicated process. While it might be possible for these to form by themselves, the odds of the right conditions occurring for this to happen are also extremely small.

For another thing, it is ludicrous to think the formation of life (or organic beings that have self-awareness, are able to think and reason) from organic compounds, could just happen by itself.

I can't understand how anyone would believe that chemicals can suddenly get clever, and figure out a way of carrying out the processes that the simplest living things do, such as: eat, react, digest, excrete, reproduce, defend itself, move around, sense its environment, sense similar organisms, etc.
And then on top of all of this, over the years these beings begin to refine themselves, they become more advanced, until ultimately, they are so advanced that they can invent, think, reason, feel, experience emotion, comprehend their environment and how and why the world around works.

You surely don't need me to tell you that there is no possible way ALL of this could have happened by itself, by chance.

This too suffers from the same problems with probabilies mentioned earlier. Also, there is the fact that the universe has vast numbers of 'chances' to form life, so the idea we arose isn't as improbable as you make it sound. An extremely low probability times an extremely high number of chances doesn't translate into an extremely low probability.

It also is a 'god of the gaps' argument.

Sure I believe in evolution to an extent, there are a lot of surprisingly common features between all the mamals for example.
I believe the big bang, or something like it must have happened, to trigger everything we know into existence. But I cannot believe that all this could have happened by itself, without some greater being controlling it.

Given common ancestors, I'd be surprised if we didn't have many common features.


On a general note, it seems that there is the underlying "argument by design" in what you're saying. Argument by design has an incredible flaw, no matter how much it seems that the universe must have been designed, the proposition of a designer would make the designer suffers from this even more. It has traditionally been answered by the copout - god has always existed, but this is hardly an acceptable answer, being it circumvents the rebuttal rather than addressing the fact that the same concerns would be raised by the designer - hence the invocation of Occam and his nasty razor...

I'm happy to enter into this discussion with anyone, but as you can see, its a huge discussion! So I suggest we talk about only one point at a time

Good idea, gives me time to squeeze some work in occasionally.

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Man... I'm sorry I wrote such a huge post okay?
Doesn't mean you have to get back at me by
writing a huge one in return! (lol)

- Just give me a few years while I read
through this alright?

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Okay here's some of my reply...

First of all I know about probabilities, and I know
that they don't prove anything, but as I said earlier...
I'm not trying to prove anything, I was only pointing out
for your sake that there *probably* is a god.
I for myself believe in God beyond a shadow of a doubt, but
that is based on personal reasons and not science.

ps. A google is not the largest number named to date
(that honour belongs to the googleplex = (google)^google)

I know that scientifically
I will never be able to prove the existence of a God, simply
because science was designed to explain the world around us,
without having to pin things up on the supernatural, and other
unexplained events like they did a few 100 years ago.

An extremely low probability times an extremely high number of chances doesn't translate into an extremely low probability.

I don't think you realize just how low these probabilties are?
Sure there are a lot of galaxies, which have a lot of stars in each,
but this number doesn't come close to the immeasureable odds of things falling together in just the right manner to get life!

Being an assumption, this pushes your argument into the 'god of the gaps' flaw of explaining creation - i.e. since we don't know the reason, god did it.

Look, I could have set out my arguments correctly, but I didn't have all day!

I'm not saying that because we don't know the reason for these things PROVES that God was involved. I was simply saying that the fact that these constants fell in just the right place for life to form, only multiplies the immeasurably small odds of life occurring by a small number once again.

Once again all of these arguments don't prove there is a God, they only give us good reason to believe there is one. I can continue bringing up similar probability discussions as to why a God probably exists, but I would have to turn to historical discussions.

In a similar way, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God, so can you see that scientifically our argument can get no where.

ps. I only wish we could argue this in a more scientific way, instead of using philosophical arguments.
(I only took one semester of it at university so you'd probably kick me at philosophy hands down, never the less I do understand how to argue as well as what proves something and what doesn't)

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
There are so many reasons why a God must have been involved in the creation of the universe, that I wouldn't even know where to start! You must have heard all the arguments?
Do you really want me to list them?

I will give a few points here, but these are only based on scientific evidence (which I'm sure you'll find it easier to relate to) I could give various historical arguments, as well as personal arguments which convince me that there is a God.
Each of these points have numerous sub points but I'm not going to list all of them.

For one thing the odds of a stable universe forming at all out of the big bang are incredibly small, and dependent on a number of parameters.

For another the conditions a planet must meet in order to sustain life are extremely tight!

For another the formation of complicated Organic Compounds eg. Proteins, from their elements is an extremely complicated process. While it might be possible for these to form by themselves, the odds of the right conditions occurring for this to happen are also extremely small.

For another thing, it is ludicrous to think the formation of life (or organic beings that have self-awareness, are able to think and reason) from organic compounds, could just happen by itself.

I can't understand how anyone would believe that chemicals can suddenly get clever, and figure out a way of carrying out the processes that the simplest living things do, such as: eat, react, digest, excrete, reproduce, defend itself, move around, sense its environment, sense similar organisms, etc.
And then on top of all of this, over the years these beings begin to refine themselves, they become more advanced, until ultimately, they are so advanced that they can invent, think, reason, feel, experience emotion, comprehend their environment and how and why the world around works.

You surely don't need me to tell you that there is no possible way ALL of this could have happened by itself, by chance.

Sure I believe in evolution to an extent, there are a lot of surprisingly common features between all the mamals for example.
I believe the big bang, or something like it must have happened, to trigger everything we know into existence. But I cannot believe that all this could have happened by itself, without some greater being controlling it.

I'm happy to enter into this discussion with anyone, but as you can see, its a huge discussion! So I suggest we talk about only one point at a time

ah... it seems truth is stranger than fiction.

are you familiar with the anthropic principles? i would suggest you research them, as they are excellent examples of scientific inquiry into such questions.

i would also remind you of another factor of probobility: size. in a universe infinite in size or time (and i am not suggesting ours is) things like these would be inevitable. our universe is very large. (<<<< a great understatement <<<<<) and so it is not difficult to concieve of such improbobly events happening.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
Okay here's some of my reply...

First of all I know about probabilities, and I know
that they don't prove anything, but as I said earlier...
I'm not trying to prove anything, I was only pointing out
for your sake that there *probably* is a god.
I for myself believe in God beyond a shadow of a doubt, but
that is based on personal reasons and not science.

This disregards any probabilities that are needed to explain god.
Re: Argument by design

ps. A google is not the largest number named to date
(that honour belongs to the googleplex = (google)^google)

I wasn't trying to go for the largest named number, merely trying to prove a point about always getting someplace, no matter that anyone of them had a low probability.

I don't think you realize just how low these probabilties are?
Sure there are a lot of galaxies, which have a lot of stars in each,
but this number doesn't come close to the immeasureable odds of things falling together in just the right manner to get life!

[this response is restricted to discussions of probabilities of life, not the universe - that is handled in the next paragraph]

This all depends on which set of assumptions you make and accept. Fifteen years ago, the probabilities of life, not just intelligent life were given at a distinct level. With todays assumptions they have fallen. These assumptions have changed just in the last few years, so the idea they will change again, when our knowledge is greater, is high.

Look, I could have set out my arguments correctly, but I didn't have all day!

I'm not saying that because we don't know the reason for these things PROVES that God was involved. I was simply saying that the fact that these constants fell in just the right place for life to form, only multiplies the immeasurably small odds of life occurring by a small number once again.

You seem to be mixing the probabilities of life, with the universe as given, and that of the universe existing as it does (with the given constants). The former I addressed in the prev paragraph.

The argument over the current universe existing with it existing constants is based on assumptions over how the constants were arrived
at. This is a seriously flawed assumption. We have seen, in the past, many times where apparently independent variables were found to be dependent on each other. To assume they are independent here is a large leap. Any argument based on this is an argument with a foundation of sand (to borrow a biblical metaphor ).

Once again all of these arguments don't prove there is a God, they only give us good reason to believe there is one. I can continue bringing up similar probability discussions as to why a God probably exists, but I would have to turn to historical discussions.

I realize you are not going for a proof, but I also disagree that they give us good reason to believe so. I see no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god, so without compelling evidence I have no belief. But if you really accept that you are looking at the evidence open-mindedly, with no preconceptions interfereing with your accepted truths, let's look a little deeper. Unless I'm mistaken, your beliefs include more than simply a god that existed and created the universe. I would guess you also believe in a god exists now, has rules we are to follow, and occasionally interacts with us. None of these things have any of the remotest unequivocal evidence to support it, yet you accept them as true. Your beliefs are yours, and I am not trying to change them, but I do think that it's given you accept these, they are very likely to color how you interpret many of the current conditions in the universe to support you belief in a god.

In a similar way, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God, so can you see that scientifically our argument can get no where.

With your view of god, and for most [sane] people I know, this is quite true. There are a number of fundamentalist views of god that can be disproved, by the same mechnisms that allow us to prove there are no spherical cubes, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not trying to change your accepted truths, in any way except concerning beliefs, that a non-believer, from his/her POV, can rationally see the existence of a god or gods as having extremely little evidence. [My high school english teacher would have had a coronary over that last sentence]

ps. I only wish we could argue this in a more scientific way, instead of using philosophical arguments.
(I only took one semester of it at university so you'd probably kick me at philosophy hands down, never the less I do understand how to argue as well as what proves something and what doesn't) [/B]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I've not taken any courses in philosophy, though I am quite familiar with the rules of informal logic.

For a much better rendition of the problems inherent in the Argument For Design, go to http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design.

 

[Owl]

Define God: God is everything. Me, you, them, that and those. We are made up of the cows, pigs, chicken and the animals or other means of food we eat. The animals we eat are made up of the grass, insects and other animals they eat. That leads to the grass and fruits that are made up of the ground and water of this earth. The cycle just keeps getting deeper. In my head it makes much sense but i am not one who explains in great detail to help others understand my views.

We are all one as a life force. A force that is in all particles. So once we no longer produce enough energy to stay in our living form our life force will be released back into the earth. Although in my beliefs there is no utopia or heavens when we die it does not mean that the void of no longer being able to think or feel is all that bad.

Who created us? My answer would be there was no creation. The life force has always existed. You can probably see my point by my eairler examples of that we are made up of ground and water. heh.. the bible was close to the theory of first humans being clay. So with conversion of the paricles and the universe making up our existence there should be no question of creation.

 

[carla]

I have a growing admiration for Yahweh or YHWH (?) which, as I understand it, is exactly that...a ? which can not be reduced to a mere human model, concept, idea, understanding

which always leaves things open and room for improvement

:)

 

[amp]

Good Point Carla,

By the way howdy everybody, been away for awhile(ONLY HAVE ACCESS AT MY YOB and was locked out the web) God, is just a title to describe a concept of existence that's inexpressible. I once heard Yahweh literally means 'causes to be' an attribute of this entity. By way of definition, this entity is most difficult of comprehension not withstanding explanation. Consider though, if there is a being of such manifold ability then it at least stands to reason it would make an attempt to communicate. There is evidence that there have been a few attempts at just that. Unfortunately, these directed exchanges were modified by people with an agenda toward selfish gain. I suppose knowing this would happen this entity communicated at various times in mankinds history, to refresh the info - so to speak. Perhaps, we are about due for another revalation. Peace. Amp

 

[mikelus]

god is acually everything the thoughts you run from and the reasons why. God is the grass that your feet tread upon outside. god the reason why we pass on and also the reason why were born. god is the answer to the unanswered question.

 

[Shyam]

I think that the term "god" is a belief more than anything. U can explain that the Earth and planets were created by the BIg bang but can you explain how was the first ever particle was created. That is beyond the dimensions of physics.

This has got to do with the mindset of people and the general acceptance that god is a supreme being. Assertions can't be made as to what physics has to do with god.

This is my personal opinion...

 

[hamlet69]

god

is everything and nothing , maybe a constant state of a qutam universe a particle here then not!

maybe just a belief in a god so we can justife to ourselfs that the devil does evil things 9when we actual do) and GOD would put it right

but whatever god is or was because he/she/it could have died the thought of this is still with us to this day

 

[ThOrNe]

I think that god is just a scapegoat for the causes of unexplainable events in the universe. We just don't understand everything (and those of us alive now never will). There used to be gods of nearly everything but as we realized the true reason for these events/objects then we generally stopped believing. I'm fairly sure that eventually whatever god you may worship now will eventually be debunked as mere ignorance or just forgotten. However there is one aspect of god that may never be forgotten...we may never know what caused this universe to begin it's existence(/the cause of the big bang or w/e you prefer), and whatever that cause is, is what i believe is truly god.

 

[Loren Booda]

Maybe God is the being who is undefinable (i. e., unconfinable), despite our attempts.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The moral of Job seems to be that it's blashphemy to defend God against the problem of evil; theodicy is impious. Because to do it, you have to "explain God's ways to man", and that presumes you know and understand God's ways, and that is an offense against the Almighty.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
The moral of Job seems to be that it's blashphemy to defend God against the problem of evil; theodicy is impious. Because to do it, you have to "explain God's ways to man", and that presumes you know and understand God's ways, and that is an offense against the Almighty.

Well, I do understand his ways. He said he wouldn't take offense as long as I didn't tell anyone else.