When discussing God, we really have to keep several things in mind. Now, in case you missed me explaining countless times before, I will have some clear definitions and clarifications at the bottom, of God, concept, and religion, in case you don't understand the context.
Now, I am going to be explaining the several levels of the "God situation" in whatever order I do, however I am not suggesting any particular order of thought or analysis.
There are several ways we can approach the subject of God, and several ways to perceive and act upon it; firstly, the "absolute" way. In this way, we can only declare the existence or nonexistence of God. Of course, this is impossible at the moment, since God can neither be proved nor disproved-
-'atheist interjection'-
" Yes, but the tooth fairy also cannot be disproved"
This is very true, and in the absolute sense, God is entirely comparable to the tooth fairy, or flying spaghetti monster, or invisible pink unicorns. There are, of course, further levels on the God situation that must be understood, which seperate the concept or conclusion from the others (actually, you cannot call any of the others "conclusions"; I will explain further)
The reason you cannot state that the tooth fairy or FSM are conclusions is because they are not based on observation, whereas, as I will later explain, "God" does have a certain observation behind it.
We then move on to basis. This is where God and the others seperate; a logical basis is one that can be supported by observation and logical process to come to a conclusion or logical idea. Now, it is important to understand how I use "God" in this situation, so if you don't already know, please refer to the bottom for clarification
If we are to examine the forces of causality, we can come only to two possible conclusions: intent or non intent. Nothing happens that cannot be categorized into one of the two; nothing.
For instance, my typing on the keyboard is done with intent; however, a tree growing on an uninhabited island occurs without intent.
It is only necessary to understand these two conclusions to continue; details are unnecessary, and have no basis. For instance, to suggest that the universe came to be either without intent, or with intent, is a logical conclusion based on observation. However, to suggest that the universe came to be because of a giant celestial hot dog and potato slamming into each other, or that it came to be because of a giant wizard with white hair who does this and that, cannot be supported by observation. Regardless, the former falls under "non intent" and the latter under "intent"
Based on these observations on causation, we can make the conclusion that our universe was either created or came to be without intent (i.e, wasn't "created").
We can even classify the FSM and IPU; however, they are irrational simply because there is no basis by which we come to the conclusion of a being made of spaghetti or a horned horse that is pink. Both fall under "intent" or "intelligence", but we can go no further than that possibility. Neither can we conclude that the force of intelligence is a white bearded, omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful being; neither can we conclude heaven and hell, or anything of the sort.
The only conclusions are intent and non intent. That's it. And for this, the tooth fairy and the sort, in having no basis for concept and no basis for detail, fall flat on their faces.
God, however, in the sense that I am using, survives. Now, in the sense that I am using, "God" could be the FSM or IPU or the Christian God or Muslim God or any deity; that's irrelevant, however. I am examining the actual concept of intent/intelligence. I cannot go further to conclude or suggest details, because there is no observation that I can base my logic in doing so on.
After basis, we move to probability. As explained, we can observe intent and non intent; now, as to their suggestion in being the cause of the beginning of the universe (I am not referring to Mankind's origins), there is absolutely no evidence nor observation to support either claim. The big bang is evidence only of the big bang.
Therefore, in their equal observation but equal lack of evidence, I conclude a near fifty/fifty chance at the moment or, perhaps a more intelligent stance, that the origins of the universe are unknowable in every respect, but both creation and non intent beginning are both on the table with equal weight.
1.God- An intelligent entity or force higher than Humanity
2.Concept The concept of an intelligent entity or force higher than Humanity without any specifications as to the nature, intent, identity, ability, etc, of this entity.
3.Religion An interpretation of the concept above
Now, I am going to be explaining the several levels of the "God situation" in whatever order I do, however I am not suggesting any particular order of thought or analysis.
There are several ways we can approach the subject of God, and several ways to perceive and act upon it; firstly, the "absolute" way. In this way, we can only declare the existence or nonexistence of God. Of course, this is impossible at the moment, since God can neither be proved nor disproved-
-'atheist interjection'-
" Yes, but the tooth fairy also cannot be disproved"
This is very true, and in the absolute sense, God is entirely comparable to the tooth fairy, or flying spaghetti monster, or invisible pink unicorns. There are, of course, further levels on the God situation that must be understood, which seperate the concept or conclusion from the others (actually, you cannot call any of the others "conclusions"; I will explain further)
The reason you cannot state that the tooth fairy or FSM are conclusions is because they are not based on observation, whereas, as I will later explain, "God" does have a certain observation behind it.
We then move on to basis. This is where God and the others seperate; a logical basis is one that can be supported by observation and logical process to come to a conclusion or logical idea. Now, it is important to understand how I use "God" in this situation, so if you don't already know, please refer to the bottom for clarification
If we are to examine the forces of causality, we can come only to two possible conclusions: intent or non intent. Nothing happens that cannot be categorized into one of the two; nothing.
For instance, my typing on the keyboard is done with intent; however, a tree growing on an uninhabited island occurs without intent.
It is only necessary to understand these two conclusions to continue; details are unnecessary, and have no basis. For instance, to suggest that the universe came to be either without intent, or with intent, is a logical conclusion based on observation. However, to suggest that the universe came to be because of a giant celestial hot dog and potato slamming into each other, or that it came to be because of a giant wizard with white hair who does this and that, cannot be supported by observation. Regardless, the former falls under "non intent" and the latter under "intent"
Based on these observations on causation, we can make the conclusion that our universe was either created or came to be without intent (i.e, wasn't "created").
We can even classify the FSM and IPU; however, they are irrational simply because there is no basis by which we come to the conclusion of a being made of spaghetti or a horned horse that is pink. Both fall under "intent" or "intelligence", but we can go no further than that possibility. Neither can we conclude that the force of intelligence is a white bearded, omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful being; neither can we conclude heaven and hell, or anything of the sort.
The only conclusions are intent and non intent. That's it. And for this, the tooth fairy and the sort, in having no basis for concept and no basis for detail, fall flat on their faces.
God, however, in the sense that I am using, survives. Now, in the sense that I am using, "God" could be the FSM or IPU or the Christian God or Muslim God or any deity; that's irrelevant, however. I am examining the actual concept of intent/intelligence. I cannot go further to conclude or suggest details, because there is no observation that I can base my logic in doing so on.
After basis, we move to probability. As explained, we can observe intent and non intent; now, as to their suggestion in being the cause of the beginning of the universe (I am not referring to Mankind's origins), there is absolutely no evidence nor observation to support either claim. The big bang is evidence only of the big bang.
Therefore, in their equal observation but equal lack of evidence, I conclude a near fifty/fifty chance at the moment or, perhaps a more intelligent stance, that the origins of the universe are unknowable in every respect, but both creation and non intent beginning are both on the table with equal weight.
1.God- An intelligent entity or force higher than Humanity
2.Concept The concept of an intelligent entity or force higher than Humanity without any specifications as to the nature, intent, identity, ability, etc, of this entity.
3.Religion An interpretation of the concept above
