An Analysis of the God situation

[Norsefire]

1) Not according to the majority of the world's christians that amusingly believe they have a personal relationship with that god.

2) That entity is furthermore described in the book those christians claim is true and hence a christian couldn't argue that 'god is unknown'. If we take a quick glance through that 'book of truth' we find:

- His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult

- His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire.

- And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "king of kings, and lord of lords"

So, this god is far from unknown. We know he has arms, legs, a head, eyes, hair etc, (he looks just like us). We know he wears clothing, (to keep his godly penis hidden no doubt), and he's got a nice bronze tan.

That's my point, the details have no basis, but the concept does.

If you're going to do a Norse and state "when I say 'god' I just mean some unknown intelligence" then you might as well be talking about the FSM, IPU etc - it makes no difference - but in doing so, you would not be using the word 'god' in the manner it is understood and so have no reason to use it in the first place.

Specifying the nature of the concept is impossible, the only thing we can conclude is the possibility of the concept based on our observation of intelligence. When we actually attribute what "God" is, say the FSM or IPU, it's just our interpretation.

The key point is the concept.

Norse, if I may?

I have to take issue with your argument. First--and I apologize for nitpicking here--a tree growing on an island does not grow without intent. Nature intends that tree to grow; there is always a "why" in nature, and it is simply "because it can". Life exists and thrives because it can.

Nature cannot have intent.

Anyway, I have a hard time putting odds on creation. The reason being that we have no basis for god. We cannot say there is a creator, and we can't say a creator is even possible, so how can we give it a 50% chance of creating the universe? Do you follow? We don't know that god is possible, so how can we put odds on its supposed actions?

I don't see why God is scientifically impossible; and the basis, as I've explained, is our observation of intelligence.

There are 32 teams in the National Football League, correct? If I said to you that I firmly believed that there was, in fact, a 33rd team, it would not be possible to calculate its odds of winning the Super Bowl. Why? Because even if I told you that it was without a doubt the most talented, athletic team in the league, there would be no way to verify the existence of this team, and therefore no way of knowing if it would be available to play in the game.

What leads you to the conclusion of a 33rd team?

And one could argue that the evidence for the existence of Lenny outweighs the evidence for the existence of God.

The evidence? Neither have evidence

The point is basis. What, in observation and logics, leads you to the conclusion of Lenny the Leprechaun?

For "God", our observation as intelligence being a force of causation leads us to fill in the missing pieces with, intelligence!

That's where the idea comes from, and it really isn't that ridiculous if you strip it of scripture.

 

[Balerion]

Nature cannot have intent.

Says who?

I don't see why God is scientifically impossible; and the basis, as I've explained, is our observation of intelligence.

I never said God is scientifically impossible. All I've said was that we don't know if it's possible. There is a difference.

And your basis holds no water. How would intelligence be evidence of God?

What leads you to the conclusion of a 33rd team?

Nothing more than you base your conclusion for God on.

The evidence? Neither have evidence

Folklore, written legend.

For "God", our observation as intelligence being a force of causation leads us to fill in the missing pieces with, intelligence!

Who is "us"? Anyway, intelligence creates things, and since all of it is within the medium of the universe, how can you just assume there is intelligence beyond the universe that is capable of creating it? I mean, you are taking the very real obstacle of the end of the universe and simply ignoring it by letting your model of "intelligence is causation" waltz right through it. Not how it works, Norse. Once you get beyond the universe--which is where we are, and all we know--you can't simply assume that your little theory (or any theory) holds water.

So yes, it is completely ridiculous to assume that intelligece = causation holds any water at all when it comes to the creation of the universe.