PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
Still, here is a smug and perhaps a bit arrogant attempt of my own to prove the existence of God by rational argument. I posted the same on DC&R and I found the atheists' criticism there a bit unconvincing, so perhaps some people here have more arguments. So let's get started...
. In the other case, the universe would be controlled by all of these mechanisms plus a random generator, a dice-throwing mechanism. 
Existance sure im fine with that defination
God not so fine but i'll get onto that
To me all you have said is the universe exists. If you are saying to you the unverse with all its varies rules is god then hey thats cool I think it fits your defination. But is that what god really is? Im inclinde to say no although im not sure why but i shall explain. Expessially for the "popular" notions of what god is i don't think it fits. Another question is does anything else fit that defenation? Say in 1 billion years time we can create a wirless network that covers the unverse and is taped into everysingle thing including all the things "god" can do and is all controled by some AI that knows every particle of the universe... is the AI god? Yes its a little spaced out but say such a thing existed no matter how unlikely would it infact be god? To me it seems with your defination you have to say yes. It is everywhere, it knows everything and and has full control. indeed it is a "mechancal god" if you would permit the term. I find this problematic, god cannot be man made can it? I may of missed some of your post or miss read, but unless you included creation of the unverse as a must somewhere it appears god can indeed be man made. This is what i think the problem with your defination of god is. I know creation isn't strictly something all god do. While i don't know exactly what is wrong with your defination of god but I think something must be off if god can be a computer under it. Of course even if this were to exist and you did define it as god that would just mean that there are two gods both controling the exact same things exact the AI would have more power as it can change gods work.
Yeah if it controls anything then sure it can fit but then again it would of fit if earth had turmed out full of sharks with legs. But i have already made my sorta objection.
I just think you defination is wrong, while i don't know exactly what is wrong with it i refuse to believe that god can be man made. Then again I have never been one for rational stuff so meh. But could god be a machine if we ever advanced as a speies that far?
P.S. sorry if i missed anything that makes all of this a waste of time.... oh and sorry if its a waste of time without you needing to say anything
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
There can be no unified entity anywhere near the scale of the Universe which 'knows' the state of all its constituents at any instant, due to the limitations of relativity and light speed. Quantum effects further obscure this, but even without Quantum Theory, chaotic interactions also make total knowledge of the course of events impossible.
And omnipotence is even less applicable, since it is tightly bound to the laws of physics which are the logical consequences of the very basic properties of the most elementary particles, which can only occupy an infinitesimal part of the set of all 'conceivable' universes, which itself is a tiny subset of all actual possible sets of Universe histories. There is not by enormous orders of magnitude enough information content in something like the Big Bang singularity to determine the detailed form of the Universe, let alone the sequence of events which play out in it.
So the Universe is neither a unitary entity nor an omniscient or omnipotent one, so it doesn't remotely qualify in any meaningful sense as a stand-in for what any major theistic religion mean by 'God'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
This reads like a fusion of pantheism and Christianity that tries to make the former seem more holy and the latter make sense.
It fails on both counts.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I would weigh in on the omnipotence, but Bob covered it. Still I must ask: How can a being have the ability to do anything when said being is constrained from doing so by natural law? If god cannot make an object that goes faster than light, or a star that never burns out, how is the god you believe in omnipotent?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Ok, so there is a super brain with no physical brain, with no neurons or cerebellum and has a location that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time?
And your invisible friend claim is different than all others in human history how?
Maybe you merely like the idea of a super hero. Just like the ancient Egyptians liked the idea of the sun being a thinking being that was their super hero? Maybe?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi Sjoerd, welcome to the forum.
You strike me as some sort of a philosophical pantheist. Is this correct?
I am pretty much in agreement with you, but as you already predicted yourself, I object to calling it 'God.' Well, you can call it God if you want, but I find it to be pointless and needlessly complicated. I don't understand why you feel the need to 'invent' another 'God' when there are already so many competing beliefs, doctrines, worldviews, and definitions. Why not call it a "frindle?"
Two of the most prevalent ideas of God is that God is an "intelligence" and that God is an unknown. The universe does not fit either of these criterion. True, currently, the origin of the universe is a mystery, but it is not a mystery in the same sense that most Gods are. The typical theist's God is supernatural, so it is not merely something that we don't understand, but something that we can't understand, by definition. It is supposed to be something that is beyond human comprehension.
I also find your application of your definition of God, "omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent," rather silly. In summary, you merely explained that the universe was omnipotent because the universe could do anything that the universe could do, that it 'knew' everything in the universe since it is the universe, and that it was everywhere in the universe since the universe is everywhere in the universe. Since you took issue with benevolence and sentience partly due to their anthropomorphic natures, don't you also have problems with the three omni characteristics you presented and the manner in which you presented them? Omnipotence is usually attributed to an intelligent entity that can "do" anything. Similarly, omniscience is "know" everything, and omnipresence is "be" everywhere. See, every God trait is stolen from naturalism and anthropomorphized to a certain extent, including these. The way you have defined these omni traits are not in the spirit of how they are typically defined. So, I can't say that your argument is invalid, but it feels like you're just playing word games. You've simply picked out a ridiculously vague and broad definition, and interpreted it and characteristics of the universe to make it fit.
I don't think you can know that.
Certainly not. The universe is not intelligent. It is not benevolent. It is not jealous, merciful, wrathful, loving, etc.
You are pretty much an atheist. I am pretty much a theist, if believing your 'God' makes me a theist. It's mostly semantics at this point.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Welcome to the forum.
This is just pure equivocation, really. Why does one need to call such a thing, "god" when "universe" will suffice.
This particular "god" does not have seem to have a particular personification, so it would be difficult to have any meaningful understanding its wrath, judgment, love, etc...
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Hmmm. I read blah blah blah... uncaused causality. Forcing something to conform to the standards of being axiomatic doesn't qualify as proof of being axiomatic. It would need to be evident.
For such an unlimited god, you certainly have put it into a nice tight circular box.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Yeah, I know this definition and I can in some sense agree with that, if I leave out a lot of details. This is why I understand theism rather as WORSHIPPING any particular god, which is well recognizable. There are theistic types walking around, full of devotion to the god, diminishing themselves, thinking that it will make the god more glorious. They're also very emotional.
And similarly, I can well imagine a scientific method of invocating God (or the universe) to gather an energy for various useful projects, like healing, building, or transportation. All that without climbing into God's imaginary ass.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
This is WHY I think the word "atheist" should not be limited to god belief. It should be synonymous with skepticism of any naked assertion.
The energy of nature, both potential and kinetic, are no more cognitive than the turd I dump in my toilet. There is no reason to degrade the natural psychological "sense of awe" to the comic book word "god" which has no basis in reality.
Cognition is not a precondition to reality, it is an emergent property. Nature is nature, it is not a god. "god" is nothing but an anthropromorphic tribalistic mythological word created at time of human ignorance. Instead of trying to repackage a bad word, lets leave it in the garbage can where it belongs and move on.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't think your definition of God is a coherent one. One quibble is this: how can something be "omniscient" without being "sentient"? Perhaps I use sentient in a slightly different sense than you do. But it seems to me that one cannot be said to "know" anything without the ability to perceive. The way you've defined your universe-God, it seems like God is all the knowledge ever, not that God possesses all the knowledge ever. As though God is some enormous database.
Additionally, I think you are being rather optimistic with your invocation of "quantum mechanics." (Please forgive me, but as a physicist I find these lines of argumentation particularly tedious.) Quantum mechanics is still a set of physical laws. It does not allow literally everything to happen. Yes, it's much more permissive than classical physics, but this is hardly what I would describe as "omnipotent." Unless you are arguing that your universe-God simply doesn't wish to break its physical laws, which I think would go against your desire not to anthropomorphize.
My biggest complaint is that your definition of God is boring. I too feel a sense of awe when I look at pictures from Hubble, and whatnot. But to call that God? It just seems unnecessary. It's already an amazing thing. To superimpose these random ideas of "omnipotence" and "omni" various other things...why? Why even start doing that?
Well, it's pretty hard to argue that the universe doesn't exist. So if you somehow manage to define the universe as God, I guess so...
I don't think so. Pretty sure the Abrahamic God comes with some particular Judeo-Christian assumptions about what God is like. Unless you mean something completely different by Abrahamic God.
You can call me Z.
I also see no logical necessity that any assumed Creator God must have any omni- attributes, or even must be 'infinite' in any sense. This also goes along with the common automatic but unjustified assumptions that God must be 'perfect', or even 'Good', or particularly interested in us, or what we do.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"I will not argue for sentience or benevolence, which are IMO somewhat anthropomorphic properties not required for theism in general." Though you won't argue for it the entire post assumed sentience. Furthermore the sentience and benevolance of God are the corner stones of any theist belief, if you don't have sentience and benevolance you're not talking about God, you're talking about causing events without the ability to cause them.
Congratulations! You just gave us a very verbose definition of pantheism. Can you now give us the arguments for believing in it?
Well, I am very pleased about the amount of rational response here! I will now answer your replies as good as I can...
Well, we can disagree on that one... most people (theists and atheists alike) can only think of God in terms of a big bearded man in the sky. Those who think a bit deeper usually reject this concept of God though. It is clear that an omnipotent/scient being doesn't have human emotions and is totally beyond good and evil by any human concept.
Such a universe AI would not be God, because it would still be bound by the laws of the universe, and wouldn't have any knowledge of anything that happened before it was built.
I think you are misunderstanding me. The World of Warcraft universe is bound by laws, about how fast things can travel, etc. Therefore, there can be no omniscient thing or being inside WoW. Nevertheless, the WoW servers, databases and source code are omnipotent and omniscient with regard to the WoW universe.
You are making a claim without providing any reasoning or evidence in support. Please elaborate.
The correct term is panentheism, not pantheism. And the arguments for believing in it are the same as for any other abstract concept, like freedom, justice or pi: because it is logically consistent and gives us the means to talk about things.
That is the weirdest description of the universe that I ever heard... but I guess you could describe it that way.
These are your words, though, not mine.
You are committing an "ad hominem" logical fallacy here. Please provide criticism that is rational.
But that doesn't prove there is anything equivalent to that with respect to our universe, and anyway, you are claiming this omniscient entity is the Universe itself, and it is impossible for the Universe to form such an entity.
You have to make a whole lot of assumptions to make any such entity possible 'outside' the Universe, and that it somehow works to a completely different set of laws that somehow allow it to intervene on a detail level with our universe. Having to make all those assumptions is the very opposite of 'proving' that such a thing is clearly 'provable'.
'Determinism" is a slightly out-dated concept. Reality is more complex.
When you have a lot of interacting entities, and feedback, where the outcome of a continuing process can affect the input to the process, and this can lead to 'chaotic' behaviour, where the outcome is in every sense unpredictable, ie effectively random. So even in a world of strict cause and effect, predictability is not inevitable.
You then throw in quantum effects, where events are seen to occur with no apparent cause, and the timing of when they occur appears to be the closest we see to being truly random.
So the modern scientific view is that the course of events is 'determined' by a combination of identifiable cause-effect determinism and some degree of randomness. The underlying apparent randomness may reflect the interaction of a vast number of interacting fundamental particles, which approximate 'true' randomness so closely that the distinction doesn't really matter.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
NO NO NO NO NO NO.
Although some have tried to avoid the mythological past by describing the universe in "new age" terms as being an entity. My point is, past or present, is that beings with no body or brain, be they a "ghost" "spirit" "god" or "force" or "universe" ARE ALL ABSURD CLAIMS.
It is nothing but humans conflating their own finite attributes to a utopia that doesn't exist.
The standard old school myth lovers quote old comic books written 2,000 years ago. Some people today claim that there is a "cognition" that can exist outside the human brain. Some believe that the universe itself is a thinking entity. MY POINT is that all of it, past or present, monotheist or polytheist or new age, is all bullshit!
I am not being mean in saying this anymore than Galileo was mean in telling the majority the earth was not flat.
The claims of Magic trics of Jesus are no more credible than the claims of Muslims getting 72 virgins, anymore than someone claiming the universe is a thinking brain.
A NAKED ASSERTION IS A NAKED ASSERTION, past or present. Dress a skunk up in a tux, it is still a skunk. Bad logic will always be bad logic.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You are free to have your own God concept, and your disbelief of it, as long as you don't force either upon me. I have not argued for any kind of cognition here so please don't attack any straw men.
Funny that you talk about potential energy and then about "basis in reality". You see, potential energy has no basis at all in empirical reality. It is forced upon us by the dogma of the first law of thermodynamics, which insists that the energy must remain constant.
"Skepticism of any naked assertion" is also a bit unpractical. As far as I know, the Euclidian axioms are naked assertions, and so is nearly everything that you read in a dictionary.
God isn't a man with a beard in the sky. God is an abstract concept: like potential energy, Euclidian axioms and dictionary definitions. Abstract concepts are neither true or false, they are either consistent or inconsistent, and given their consistency, either meaningful or meaningless. The latter is subjective.
What ad homin? Are you telling me that The Egyptian sun god was real and had a physical brain that science located and confirmed? Are you arguing that the Muslim god or Jewish god Or Hindu gods have independent peer reviewed evidence of their existence? What Ad Homin? Is it name calling to tell someone that it is bullshit to claim that Thor made lighting?
Are you denying that humans in our species history have never made up stories that were false and sold them as fact? How did you escape what humanity hasn't?
What I say is offensive. I admit without apology. But it is not meant to hurt anymore than telling someone that Thor did not make lighting. You can like whatever you believe all you want. You can claim whatever you believe all you want.
There is a difference between making a claim and being able to show others outside your club that what you claim is credible and verifiable outside your personal whims.
Telling the truth hurts sometimes. But when people face it, they learn. otherwise our species never would have left the caves.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Butterbattle and UbuntuAnyone, thanks for your welcome! I am sorry, I wanted to reply to you also today. However, a good answer to your posts requires more care than I have currently time for. I will be back later and write proper answers to you, and also to Luminon, thoughtcounts-Z, Philophile, Darth_Josh and to the responses to my responses.... I am looking forward to some more good debating!
cheers
Sjoerd
If there is no cognition, it is not a God in any meaningful sense of that term. It is a blind force of nature.
And if you think potential energy is a fiction, and first law of thermodynamics is dogma, you truly do not understand physics, so are totally unqualified to argue the subject, whatever your qualifications in 'bio-informatics'.
You seem to be cherry-picking science in an effort to back up your belief system, which is a very dishonest approach.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
No one cares, the point is you gave us a definition and not an argument for the definition as you claimed you would.
I didn't ask you to give an argument for believing your definition is correct, I asked for what you claimed this would be: an argument for beliving in the concept the definition is describing.
For the sake of argument, I'll play.
The WOW servers, source code, etc may qualify as omniscient in regard to the game, but they do nothing more than regulate gameplay. None of these is capable of making a choice. At most they react to stimulae. Actual choices require a programmer. Therefore they cannot be omnipotent, even in the context of the game. For example, a sub-programme alots loot for completing certain tasks, but it has no choice. It cannot say it doesn't want to, it just alots the predetermined loot. The rules of the system bind the system to the point that free will not only doesn't exist, but cannot exist. Without free will, omnipotence is impossible. With it, the game collapses.
I could also argue that technically, the game is large enough that no single component of the game can know the full status of the game. It takes time for servers to cross reference with each other. Unless the game stops, it is impossible for the game to know the status of the game.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
To the OP:
All you did was create a definition that matches reality, then tack on a god part with no proof, or even making a case for the necessity of your claim. You have no argument for such an extra-universal 'god' besides your flat assertion.
At this point I think you have to provide an actual argument to support your claims before anything productive can be discussed. Why must such an extra-universal being exist? How can you logically support the existence of such an entity? How can you even hold a concept of something extra-universal in your physical mind? Can you define such a thing without changing definitions for well-established words like god, omni-x, existence, etc.?
(Edit: I guess the summation is I don't even think you have made a useful claim in your original post.)
(Second Edit: Plus, what qualities are you assigning to god? If it is not intelligent, does it care about humans? Also, by your definition free will cannot exist. Are you OK with that?)
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Quantum tunneling. White dwarfs.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
No, but Quantum Tunneling is a process by which "stuff" does move faster than light.
Nope - they are the "not to hot, not too cold" stars of the Universe. From what I understand, astronomers have never found a star that USED to be a white dwarf. They either still are, or they will be some day.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."