Does God Think?

V

Varda

The Bug Lady
Valued Senior Member
If the thought is a process for manipulating information with the objective of making decisions, solving problems, forming concepts etc; and god is omniscient, so he doesn't need to think. Does that make sense?
 
No. There is no god of any kind. Therfore playing logic games with the properties of god is no more entertaining or enlightening than playing logic games with the properties of wood elves.
 
Varda, you are going to get a lot of that here at sciforums. Though, imo, there is no proof one way or the other that god either exists or does not exist. Over the last several years, I have become an agnostic (after having been a strict southern baptist most of my life) because there is something about "God" that just reeks of human nature, and human need.
 
I made the transition from agnostic to atheist many moons ago. I find it a much more soothing state of mind.
 
Varda said:
prove it :)

i think atheism is no better than any religion.
Click to expand...

It can't be proven. But religion makes up as it goes along, its arbitary, imaginary which is fine BUT it takes these conjectures, opinions and theories and SPOUTS them as FACTS. This is the problem because it cannot be PROVEN. Better to leave it open-ended than be presumptuous.
 
superluminal said:
I made the transition from agnostic to atheist many moons ago. I find it a much more soothing state of mind.
Click to expand...

I know super, but the truth is you can't prove it. That's where I had my problems, so I think it is just better to admit that you don't know.
 
Varda said:
prove it :)

i think atheism is no better than any religion.
Click to expand...

Prove a negative? Why would I want to do such a silly thing?

Prove that there is or shut your yap. Better yet, prove that I don't have a flying spaghetti monster in my garage. An invisible, odorless, ethereal, untestable flying spaghetti monster.
 
If the thought is a process for manipulating information with the objective of making decisions, solving problems, forming concepts etc; and god is omniscient, so he doesn't need to think.



Since you have chosen to define what thought entails, you seem to have answered your own question in advance. What's there to discuss?
 
Cottontop3000 said:
I know super, but the truth is you can't prove it. That's where I had my problems, so I think it is just better to admit that you don't know.
Click to expand...

Well Cotton, my atheism is simply the variety that says what it means. A-Theism. Without theism. I have zero religion. My conviction or "belief" if you will is that since there is no evidence for a god, ever, at all, there simply isn't one.

I am increasingly irritated with the response "prove it" regarding the non-existence of a god. Why do I need to prove the non-existence of an unsupported hypothesis to begin with? If someone has evidence for a thing, we'll investigate it together and attempt to prove that it exists. But using the inability to prove a negative regarding an unsupported postulate as some kind of defense of the postulate is just childish and silly.
 
God doesn't think, he knows. Suggest such a thing again and God will shove his infinitely large boot up your ass!
 
superluminal said:
Why do I need to prove the non-existence of an unsupported hypothesis to begin with?
Click to expand...
You don't, but for a lot of people, it is like extraterrestrial life to them. They need a god. Just like I think I need aliens in my life. ;)
 
superluminal said:
Prove a negative? Why would I want to do such a silly thing?

Prove that there is or shut your yap. Better yet, prove that I don't have a flying spaghetti monster in my garage. An invisible, odorless, ethereal, untestable flying spaghetti monster.
Click to expand...

you'd should do such a silly thing as having grounds when making an affirmation
 
Varda said:
prove it :)

i think atheism is no better than any religion.
Click to expand...

That's a logic issue. A negative can't be proven... i.e. it's impossible to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Same applies to 'God'. When claim is made, the onus of proof is on the claimer (that's you in this case). Before anyone can consider your original question if 'God' can think, it's up to you to prove that the entity you are referring to as 'God' exists.
 
I know what you are saying Crunchy Cat, but just because evidence hasn't been found yet, does not mean that there is not the possibility that there will be. I'm saying that we don't want to necessarily close any doors just because there is no real evidence yet. We might have discovered that the world was round a lot sooner if everyone wasn't so adamantly against the idea. It works both ways.
 
Cottontop3000 said:
I know what you are saying Crunchy Cat, but just because evidence hasn't been found yet, does not mean that there is not the possibility that there will be. I'm saying that we don't want to necessarily close any doors just because there is no real evidence yet.
Click to expand...

That would be the case for a hypothesis. We're talking about a claim of truth in this case... 'God exists', and in the past 'n' millenia, not a shred of supportive evidence seems to have turned up and plenty of contradictory evidence has.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
That would be the case for a hypothesis. We're talking about a claim of truth in this case... 'God exists', and in the past 'n' millenia, not a shred of supportive evidence seems to have turned up and plenty of contradictory evidence has.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm just thinking out loud here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top