I've admitted several times that I may be wrong, and that God may indeed exist. After all, nothing is impossible. But much like the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" I say if there's no need for something don't assume it's there. God is not needed, and so I won't assume he exists until I find evidence to suggest otherwise.
The Age of the Universe
- Thread starter Xelios
- Start date
ImaHamster2
Registered Senior Member
Cris, the hamster perspective may not fit this thread. The science threads have been quiet so this hamster has been following people who tend to leave tasty seeds into the religion and philosophy areas. This hamster doesn’t have any true answers. Tend to value that which leads to interesting seeds and ignore the rest.
This hamster deliberately avoided defining “human methods”. Didn’t even call it “reasoning”. Humans use many problem-solving strategies. Logic and the scientific method are two of the formalized methods. Looking something up on the Internet, asking a friend, listening to one’s gut or emotions, trial and error, guessing, flipping a coin, astrology, etc. are a few others.
Many questions are answered by direct animal perception (or animal reasoning if you prefer). Rather than deducing where the water glass is one usually just looks. Rather than deducing what the result of an experiment will be one performs the experiment. (Actually one mentally performs many experiments and selects one that seems most appropriate for the real world experiment.)
This hamster lumped all these techniques together and called them human methods. This hamster doesn’t believe one method is best for all problems. Often a combined approach of using logic, one’s gut, and listening to one’s friends yields a better answer than any single approach.
Society also has methods for solving problems. Methods to choose a path when humans have applied their human methods and come to different answers. One method is to consult an “authority” or listen to the old person with the experience. Another is to consult texts, be they religious, legal, or philosophical. Another is democratic vote.
In the societal pursuit of knowledge, science has been a stellar performer. (In this hamster’s opinion pure reason has not been so successful. The ancient Greeks relied too heavily on thinking and not enough on exploration and experimentation.)
This hamster believes that all humans use a variety of reasoning techniques. Over time each person finds methods that seem appropriate for each type problem they face. A person with a talent for math or logic might find those techniques lead to success (or recognition) in some areas. A highly empathic person might find emotional reasoning yields better answers. A beautiful person may find charm provides the answers.
Cris, if you’re still reading this hamster owes you some answers.
This hamster doesn’t feel that logic is inherently superior to other forms of problem solving, not for the seed searches that interest this hamster.
This hamster believes that all problem-solving methods are inherently fallible. Some methods are better suited for certain problems than are others.
“Would you then accept a truth by one method that cannot be claimed by a more accurate method? And where does that stop?”
How does one determine which method is more accurate? In some areas science has been highly successful, so much so that no other method competes. In other areas there doesn’t seem to be a societal consensus that science is more accurate.
When confronted with different beliefs and when science has provided a probable answer this hamster follows science. This hamster also favors answers determined from experiment over those deduced from theory. This is a hamster bias reflecting this hamster’s own problem-solving methods. To the degree that science is self-correcting and encourages new discovery this hamster supports science over competing systems. This is the hamster approach. This hamster understands that others may favor a political or religious approach to resolve questions.
“Religionists take such claims to the extreme and state that religious faith is an accurate method for establishing knowledge and truth. And they call that reasonable.”
This hamster’s favorite math professor was religious. He was also a very good scientist. Most believers of this hamster’s acquaintance balance science with their beliefs. They are reasonable. Admittedly this hamster hangs out in science areas so this hamster’s circle of acquaintances is not representative of general society.
This hamster has met Fundamentalists whose worldviews strongly clashed with this hamster’s own. Doubtless both parties left thinking the other was unreasonable. Fundamentalism is a problem for science. Science and the technological fruits of science are threatening Fundamentalist beliefs and values and Fundamentalists have hurt science. This hamster would rather encourage more tolerant religious beliefs than to argue that all religious beliefs are irrational.
“In my post I stated ‘technically irrational’, to distinguish a strict logic definition with derogatory abuse.”
Cris, much as this hamster enjoys your posts, in this hamster’s opinion there is nothing to be gained by saying another person’s view is irrational, either in the common sense or the technical sense.
“But in terms of a scientific proof, or any type of proof, if all premises are not based on facts and evidence then the conclusion is invalid, but to continue to make the claim despite invalid logic is technically irrational (outside of reason).”
Believing theories unsupported by experimental evidence is unscientific but doesn’t seem technically irrational. Disagreement over premises does not invalidate logic. Cris, this hamster doesn’t really want to nit pick. Whether a person has irrational premises or irrationally draws false conclusions from reasonable premises, this hamster agrees some people are irrational. There may even be some satisfaction in saying so. This hamster doesn’t feel it aids discussion. (This hamster is not fond of debate which doubtless influences hamster views.)
This hamster deliberately avoided defining “human methods”. Didn’t even call it “reasoning”. Humans use many problem-solving strategies. Logic and the scientific method are two of the formalized methods. Looking something up on the Internet, asking a friend, listening to one’s gut or emotions, trial and error, guessing, flipping a coin, astrology, etc. are a few others.
Many questions are answered by direct animal perception (or animal reasoning if you prefer). Rather than deducing where the water glass is one usually just looks. Rather than deducing what the result of an experiment will be one performs the experiment. (Actually one mentally performs many experiments and selects one that seems most appropriate for the real world experiment.)
This hamster lumped all these techniques together and called them human methods. This hamster doesn’t believe one method is best for all problems. Often a combined approach of using logic, one’s gut, and listening to one’s friends yields a better answer than any single approach.
Society also has methods for solving problems. Methods to choose a path when humans have applied their human methods and come to different answers. One method is to consult an “authority” or listen to the old person with the experience. Another is to consult texts, be they religious, legal, or philosophical. Another is democratic vote.
In the societal pursuit of knowledge, science has been a stellar performer. (In this hamster’s opinion pure reason has not been so successful. The ancient Greeks relied too heavily on thinking and not enough on exploration and experimentation.)
This hamster believes that all humans use a variety of reasoning techniques. Over time each person finds methods that seem appropriate for each type problem they face. A person with a talent for math or logic might find those techniques lead to success (or recognition) in some areas. A highly empathic person might find emotional reasoning yields better answers. A beautiful person may find charm provides the answers.
Cris, if you’re still reading this hamster owes you some answers.
This hamster doesn’t feel that logic is inherently superior to other forms of problem solving, not for the seed searches that interest this hamster.
This hamster believes that all problem-solving methods are inherently fallible. Some methods are better suited for certain problems than are others.
“Would you then accept a truth by one method that cannot be claimed by a more accurate method? And where does that stop?”
How does one determine which method is more accurate? In some areas science has been highly successful, so much so that no other method competes. In other areas there doesn’t seem to be a societal consensus that science is more accurate.
When confronted with different beliefs and when science has provided a probable answer this hamster follows science. This hamster also favors answers determined from experiment over those deduced from theory. This is a hamster bias reflecting this hamster’s own problem-solving methods. To the degree that science is self-correcting and encourages new discovery this hamster supports science over competing systems. This is the hamster approach. This hamster understands that others may favor a political or religious approach to resolve questions.
“Religionists take such claims to the extreme and state that religious faith is an accurate method for establishing knowledge and truth. And they call that reasonable.”
This hamster’s favorite math professor was religious. He was also a very good scientist. Most believers of this hamster’s acquaintance balance science with their beliefs. They are reasonable. Admittedly this hamster hangs out in science areas so this hamster’s circle of acquaintances is not representative of general society.
This hamster has met Fundamentalists whose worldviews strongly clashed with this hamster’s own. Doubtless both parties left thinking the other was unreasonable. Fundamentalism is a problem for science. Science and the technological fruits of science are threatening Fundamentalist beliefs and values and Fundamentalists have hurt science. This hamster would rather encourage more tolerant religious beliefs than to argue that all religious beliefs are irrational.
“In my post I stated ‘technically irrational’, to distinguish a strict logic definition with derogatory abuse.”
Cris, much as this hamster enjoys your posts, in this hamster’s opinion there is nothing to be gained by saying another person’s view is irrational, either in the common sense or the technical sense.
“But in terms of a scientific proof, or any type of proof, if all premises are not based on facts and evidence then the conclusion is invalid, but to continue to make the claim despite invalid logic is technically irrational (outside of reason).”
Believing theories unsupported by experimental evidence is unscientific but doesn’t seem technically irrational. Disagreement over premises does not invalidate logic. Cris, this hamster doesn’t really want to nit pick. Whether a person has irrational premises or irrationally draws false conclusions from reasonable premises, this hamster agrees some people are irrational. There may even be some satisfaction in saying so. This hamster doesn’t feel it aids discussion. (This hamster is not fond of debate which doubtless influences hamster views.)
I apologize
It seems Asguard et al are trying to brand me close-minded or fundamentalist. Not that I care much for what the people around here think about me, but I did neglect to answer Asguard's big question. The reason for that is that I consider it both unimportant and inconsequential, which I'll explain below.
So Asguard, no, I do not have proof that no sort of any kind of god exists. I have logical proof that quite a few gods as conceived by various Earth religions cannot exist -- but these are all special cases and don't invalidate the general and further unqualified idea of a god. In particular, I have several logical proofs that the Abrahamic god cannot exist (one of them Cris mentioned briefly and that one's all mine and I'm proud of it -- find it in the "for atheists" thread amidst my and James R's discussion of it.) Several others I also came up with on my own but then later saw them coming from other people so they aren't particularly original or difficult to come up with. Cris mentioned proof from omniscience vs. free will (with assumption that free will is real.) Other proofs consider omniscience and omnipotence as fundamentally inconsistent concepts and therefore showing that such attributes are impossible (as are any gods described as such.) There are yet others.
The reason I consider your question inconsequential to the issue at hand is because there is no proof that there are no flying purple people eaters. Neither is there any proof that there aren't any swimming orange diaper cleaners. Let me see if I can put it simply enough for you to grasp...
Your argument would be that since there's no proof that no god exists, then there is a chance that some god may exist. However, what is that chance, expressed as a probability? Let's try and solve that mathematical problem:
First, note that language is infinitely generative. By this, I mean that given enough time a person can come up with an infinite number of ideas expressible through language. God is just one of those ideas -- one out of infinity.
Take 1 and divide it by a very large number, say 1 billion. You'll get an answer very close to 0. Divide 1 by an even larger number and you'll get even closer to 0. If you now take what's mathematically called a "limit" of this process -- let the divisor approach infinity, then your answer approaches 0 to any arbitrary degree of precision.
Now, despite what your siggie says the universe is deterministic and obeys a certain set of physical laws. Therefore the universe admits only a finite set of possibilities. If we take the total number of possibilities allowed by the universe (a finite number) and divide it into a number that approaches infinity we'll still get 0 as the limiting outcome. Technically this is not exactly correct, since even with physical constraints in an infinite universe you can still form an infinite number of valid arrangements. However, the key here is that the number of valid arrangements is dwarfed by the number of invalid arrangements (for each valid arrangement, there is an infinity of corresponding invalid arrangements) – so if you take the size of the set of all possible states of the universe and divide it into the size of the set of all states expressible through language (which include the invalid states) then you still get 0 as the result. What we are dealing here is what’s mathematically called set cardinality – and the cardinality of language is infinitely larger than the cardinality of the universe.
As a perhaps helpful analogy, consider the two sets of numbers: integers (whole numbers) and real numbers (including integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers like square root of 2, and transcendental numbers like PI.) While the integer set contains infinitely many elements, it turns out that the set of real numbers contains an infinite number of elements for each element in the set of integers. So even though both sets are infinite in size, the real number set’s infinity is “larger” than the infinity of the integer set.
Well, a similar thing happens with ideas vs. reality. There are infinitely more ideas than possibilities supportable by the universe. What does any of that have to do with your question, you may wonder. The point is that for an idea to be “true”, it must correspond to a valid entity in the universe. Moreover, for an idea that claims existence of something (like a god) to be true, then the corresponding entity has to actually exist in the universe. Now, given that there are infinitely more ideas than entities in the universe, you can see that the chances of any one randomly chosen of those ideas actually corresponding to an entity in the universe are 1 over infinity, or 0.
And there’s your answer. Even while I can’t prove that no god of any sort whatsoever exists, I can state confidently that the probability of any god whatsoever existing is mathematically 0.
All of this relates to the nature of knowledge. Out of infinity of ideas there are only finitely many useful ones that correspond to reality. The only non-futile route to discovery of such ideas is by examining the universe itself and forming the ideas based on what you observe. By any other approach, you stand mathematically no chance at all coming up with even 1 useful idea no matter how much time you spend.
Note that all the ideas that are useful so far have been discovered or formed in the course of direct observation or interaction with the universe. Which is as it should be. Of course note also that the idea of a god does not originate from an observation or interaction with the universe but rather from an imaginative combination of individually useful concepts (like cause, effect, actor, universe, origin, person, etc.) in a new, arbitrary way. Which is why the idea is inconsequential and useless, with 0 probability of being correct. Just like monsters under the bed, like witches flying around on brooms, like Hades, etc.
The upshot is that if you push some idea as at least potentially valid you should provide some evidence to go with it. Unless you do, we are all entirely justified in summarily dismissing your idea as improbable. Which is why you always see people demanding proof from you, and why you won’t faze anyone with the empty retort that we don’t have proof to the contrary.
It seems Asguard et al are trying to brand me close-minded or fundamentalist. Not that I care much for what the people around here think about me, but I did neglect to answer Asguard's big question. The reason for that is that I consider it both unimportant and inconsequential, which I'll explain below.
So Asguard, no, I do not have proof that no sort of any kind of god exists. I have logical proof that quite a few gods as conceived by various Earth religions cannot exist -- but these are all special cases and don't invalidate the general and further unqualified idea of a god. In particular, I have several logical proofs that the Abrahamic god cannot exist (one of them Cris mentioned briefly and that one's all mine and I'm proud of it -- find it in the "for atheists" thread amidst my and James R's discussion of it.) Several others I also came up with on my own but then later saw them coming from other people so they aren't particularly original or difficult to come up with. Cris mentioned proof from omniscience vs. free will (with assumption that free will is real.) Other proofs consider omniscience and omnipotence as fundamentally inconsistent concepts and therefore showing that such attributes are impossible (as are any gods described as such.) There are yet others.
The reason I consider your question inconsequential to the issue at hand is because there is no proof that there are no flying purple people eaters. Neither is there any proof that there aren't any swimming orange diaper cleaners. Let me see if I can put it simply enough for you to grasp...
Your argument would be that since there's no proof that no god exists, then there is a chance that some god may exist. However, what is that chance, expressed as a probability? Let's try and solve that mathematical problem:
First, note that language is infinitely generative. By this, I mean that given enough time a person can come up with an infinite number of ideas expressible through language. God is just one of those ideas -- one out of infinity.
Take 1 and divide it by a very large number, say 1 billion. You'll get an answer very close to 0. Divide 1 by an even larger number and you'll get even closer to 0. If you now take what's mathematically called a "limit" of this process -- let the divisor approach infinity, then your answer approaches 0 to any arbitrary degree of precision.
Now, despite what your siggie says the universe is deterministic and obeys a certain set of physical laws. Therefore the universe admits only a finite set of possibilities. If we take the total number of possibilities allowed by the universe (a finite number) and divide it into a number that approaches infinity we'll still get 0 as the limiting outcome. Technically this is not exactly correct, since even with physical constraints in an infinite universe you can still form an infinite number of valid arrangements. However, the key here is that the number of valid arrangements is dwarfed by the number of invalid arrangements (for each valid arrangement, there is an infinity of corresponding invalid arrangements) – so if you take the size of the set of all possible states of the universe and divide it into the size of the set of all states expressible through language (which include the invalid states) then you still get 0 as the result. What we are dealing here is what’s mathematically called set cardinality – and the cardinality of language is infinitely larger than the cardinality of the universe.
As a perhaps helpful analogy, consider the two sets of numbers: integers (whole numbers) and real numbers (including integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers like square root of 2, and transcendental numbers like PI.) While the integer set contains infinitely many elements, it turns out that the set of real numbers contains an infinite number of elements for each element in the set of integers. So even though both sets are infinite in size, the real number set’s infinity is “larger” than the infinity of the integer set.
Well, a similar thing happens with ideas vs. reality. There are infinitely more ideas than possibilities supportable by the universe. What does any of that have to do with your question, you may wonder. The point is that for an idea to be “true”, it must correspond to a valid entity in the universe. Moreover, for an idea that claims existence of something (like a god) to be true, then the corresponding entity has to actually exist in the universe. Now, given that there are infinitely more ideas than entities in the universe, you can see that the chances of any one randomly chosen of those ideas actually corresponding to an entity in the universe are 1 over infinity, or 0.
And there’s your answer. Even while I can’t prove that no god of any sort whatsoever exists, I can state confidently that the probability of any god whatsoever existing is mathematically 0.
All of this relates to the nature of knowledge. Out of infinity of ideas there are only finitely many useful ones that correspond to reality. The only non-futile route to discovery of such ideas is by examining the universe itself and forming the ideas based on what you observe. By any other approach, you stand mathematically no chance at all coming up with even 1 useful idea no matter how much time you spend.
Note that all the ideas that are useful so far have been discovered or formed in the course of direct observation or interaction with the universe. Which is as it should be. Of course note also that the idea of a god does not originate from an observation or interaction with the universe but rather from an imaginative combination of individually useful concepts (like cause, effect, actor, universe, origin, person, etc.) in a new, arbitrary way. Which is why the idea is inconsequential and useless, with 0 probability of being correct. Just like monsters under the bed, like witches flying around on brooms, like Hades, etc.
The upshot is that if you push some idea as at least potentially valid you should provide some evidence to go with it. Unless you do, we are all entirely justified in summarily dismissing your idea as improbable. Which is why you always see people demanding proof from you, and why you won’t faze anyone with the empty retort that we don’t have proof to the contrary.
Oh Bambi,
Many many thanks. I knew there had to be a good reason why I continue to hang out here. I have been struggling for years to put into perspective what you have encapsulated in a single post. I’d like to think my slow brain would have reached that conclusion by itself eventually, but I’m not so sure. With a shallow academic background I lack much of the basic knowledge needed to feed my limited ability to reason. You’re beginning to convince me that I should find time to go to school one day.
Cris
Many many thanks. I knew there had to be a good reason why I continue to hang out here. I have been struggling for years to put into perspective what you have encapsulated in a single post. I’d like to think my slow brain would have reached that conclusion by itself eventually, but I’m not so sure. With a shallow academic background I lack much of the basic knowledge needed to feed my limited ability to reason. You’re beginning to convince me that I should find time to go to school one day.
Cris
hamster,
Another long post from you. You shouldn’t give me so much attention.
Yup go wherever the chat looks like fun.
Your observations of how people reach and make decisions seem quite realistic and accurate. That of course doesn’t mean those methods are particularly efficient or accurate. Most people do not think clearly or logically or even run their lives in a logical manner because most have never been taught how to think or to reason clearly.
Without basic training in how to think people will use whatever mechanisms make them feel most comfortable and in many situations many never feel really comfortable with their methods, but of course they don’t know why.
Many do reach satisfactory results with their methods but that is more due to random luck. If more people were able to think more clearly then there would be less waste and chaos in the world. But most do not reach satisfactory results and they experience frustration, anger, and depression.
And that brings us to the irrationality of religions. These simply defy reason, and the thinking processes of those who choose to believe in religions are equally irrational. I don’t see any good reason for pretending otherwise.
While I’m not advocating that everyone should apply formal logic and strict scientific methodologies to every aspect of life, there is nevertheless an aspect and perhaps an attitude that can be derived from such formal systems that can be applied to all aspects of life. If logic is the most reliable method for reaching a conclusion then why not base all thought processes on the same approach? Or IOW why choose second or third best?
As for democracy: That is a very poor system for reaching useful or rational conclusions. The jury system is also an appalling system for achieving justice. So even while these systems are the best that a largely irrational society has managed to achieve we should not delude ourselves into believing that these are good systems.
I am quite sure that in the end any useful truth is the result of logical reasoning, although many may not recognize it as such especially if most steps were erroneous or dead ends.
While politics is likely to be with us for a considerable time, its basis is inherently logical, although it may not always appear that way. But religions never solve any problems that could not be more effectively resolved if logical reasoning were used.
I enjoyed your post.
Take care my furry friend.
Cris
Another long post from you. You shouldn’t give me so much attention.
Yup go wherever the chat looks like fun.
Your observations of how people reach and make decisions seem quite realistic and accurate. That of course doesn’t mean those methods are particularly efficient or accurate. Most people do not think clearly or logically or even run their lives in a logical manner because most have never been taught how to think or to reason clearly.
Without basic training in how to think people will use whatever mechanisms make them feel most comfortable and in many situations many never feel really comfortable with their methods, but of course they don’t know why.
Many do reach satisfactory results with their methods but that is more due to random luck. If more people were able to think more clearly then there would be less waste and chaos in the world. But most do not reach satisfactory results and they experience frustration, anger, and depression.
And that brings us to the irrationality of religions. These simply defy reason, and the thinking processes of those who choose to believe in religions are equally irrational. I don’t see any good reason for pretending otherwise.
While I’m not advocating that everyone should apply formal logic and strict scientific methodologies to every aspect of life, there is nevertheless an aspect and perhaps an attitude that can be derived from such formal systems that can be applied to all aspects of life. If logic is the most reliable method for reaching a conclusion then why not base all thought processes on the same approach? Or IOW why choose second or third best?
It might appear that way, but ultimately the final choice will be reached more quickly and efficiently if all the inputs are considered an evaluated within a logical framework. E.g. opinions of others, gut feelings, religious texts, authority figures, etc, all offer useful data that can be used to feed logical reasoning. Ultimately logic always offers the best final unifying process.
As for democracy: That is a very poor system for reaching useful or rational conclusions. The jury system is also an appalling system for achieving justice. So even while these systems are the best that a largely irrational society has managed to achieve we should not delude ourselves into believing that these are good systems.
I am quite sure that in the end any useful truth is the result of logical reasoning, although many may not recognize it as such especially if most steps were erroneous or dead ends.
Ok but I strongly disagree.
All are fallible? Yes I agree. But I believe that logic will always be the best approach for any problem.
Usage of inductive logic of course, based on observations of which methods yield the best results. Purely logical right?
While politics is likely to be with us for a considerable time, its basis is inherently logical, although it may not always appear that way. But religions never solve any problems that could not be more effectively resolved if logical reasoning were used.
Another practical observation, and I also have very good friends who are devoutly religious. But what they never do is combine their religious beliefs with their work discipline. Science and religion are opposites, one is based on evidence and the other specifically based on no evidence. A good scientist cannot reach a conclusion based on faith, he would be laughed at. So while engaged in science your professor uses reason, but while worshipping his god he is engaged in an irrational process. Why do some people have such split personalities is I admit for the moment a mystery to me.
And here we disagree significantly. I see religions as a danger to the health of human society. And as with any harmful influence removal is preferable to apathetic tolerance. So while I can show politeness to the people who believe I will fight hard against the institutions that encourage such beliefs.
The gain is the hope that the claimant might reconsider their position when faced with opposition. If you simply offer no resistance or criticism then they have no reason to believe that they might be wrong.
I completely agree, but religions do not offer theories or hypotheses. They offer their claims as absolute truth, without the option to question. Any valid premise requires supporting evidence and while the quality of the evidence might be disputed it is always expected that some evidence will be required. A premise without any evidence logically invalidates any conclusion that uses that premise. Such an invalid conclusion is logically irrational. The claims made by religions all fit the category of invalid premises and must always be considered logically irrational.
Ok I understand but that is the essential nature of a discipline that is not based on reason but faith and is the primary argument between believers and non-believers. While I try not to continually remind believers that their beliefs are irrational I think it is important to infrequently, at least, indicate the basis of the disagreement between the two sets of protagonists.
I enjoyed your post.
Take care my furry friend.
Cris
Last edited:
Hi ismu,
I was addressing the whole religious concept rather than any one particular religion or group of religions. However, it has been Christianity that has tended to intrude the most into my freedoms, so if my post seems in any way biased then it would be Christianity that I would have at the back of my mind.
Hope that help.
Cris
I was addressing the whole religious concept rather than any one particular religion or group of religions. However, it has been Christianity that has tended to intrude the most into my freedoms, so if my post seems in any way biased then it would be Christianity that I would have at the back of my mind.
Hope that help.
Cris
Um... please consider the following
If there is a 'God' and if this 'God' is pre-universe, in fact, if this 'God' was the only thing-object-reality before the universe and if this 'God' is conceptually infinite then that 'God' is changeless and static. Reason: All potentialities, possibilities,probabilities are within the exisitential being of that 'God' Next, this 'God' causes creation, since this 'God' is all there is the creation occurs within this 'God' (sort of universal set subset type of thing) therefore if the creation is in this 'God' then the discovery of the fabric of our universe would be indirect proof of this 'Gods' exisitance. Any takers for this one? Peace , Joy and most of all Love :~) Amp
If there is a 'God' and if this 'God' is pre-universe, in fact, if this 'God' was the only thing-object-reality before the universe and if this 'God' is conceptually infinite then that 'God' is changeless and static. Reason: All potentialities, possibilities,probabilities are within the exisitential being of that 'God' Next, this 'God' causes creation, since this 'God' is all there is the creation occurs within this 'God' (sort of universal set subset type of thing) therefore if the creation is in this 'God' then the discovery of the fabric of our universe would be indirect proof of this 'Gods' exisitance. Any takers for this one? Peace , Joy and most of all Love :~) Amp
Hi Bambi, another POV...
What about the case where unlike this statement "Moreover, for an idea that claims existence of something (like a god) to be true, then the corresponding entity has to actually exist in the universe." the thrust of my post is to reflect on the possibility that 'God' is greater than the 'Universe' so that the universe is in 'God'. PEACE Amp
What about the case where unlike this statement "Moreover, for an idea that claims existence of something (like a god) to be true, then the corresponding entity has to actually exist in the universe." the thrust of my post is to reflect on the possibility that 'God' is greater than the 'Universe' so that the universe is in 'God'. PEACE AmpAmp,
All you have done is equate god with the universe. Most (if not all) of the time I say "universe" I mean everything that exists -- as opposed to just the known, visible subset of existence which I try to refer to as the "known universe", or the "observable universe".
Now consider your own argument that an omniscient, omnipotent god must be unchanging. Can an intellect be unchanging? Is thought in fact not change within the mind? By your own argument, the god cannot be intelligent or alive. IOW, you merely rename the universe as god.
All you have done is equate god with the universe. Most (if not all) of the time I say "universe" I mean everything that exists -- as opposed to just the known, visible subset of existence which I try to refer to as the "known universe", or the "observable universe".
Now consider your own argument that an omniscient, omnipotent god must be unchanging. Can an intellect be unchanging? Is thought in fact not change within the mind? By your own argument, the god cannot be intelligent or alive. IOW, you merely rename the universe as god.
Not at all Bambi
Universe ~= 'God' . I did not equate. Literally imagine what I wrote that God is Bigger, Greater, more extant than the universe.
Sorry, I used a bab analogy-'(sort of universal set subset type of thing)'- I'm not really going for cardinality but heres a better analogy: God = Complex # Field, Universe = Real # Field. Is that better? Thus, universe inside of 'God' ,figuratively speaking.
Now, about omniscience and omnipotence, you appear to have inserted an argument other than the one I expressed. Intellegence is a function of mind and I believe memory perhaps other qualities. Knowledge = information, Now if the information is without limit, ie. infinite knowledge then where does change come from since it can be seen that there is really no way to come up with something new when all is known and by extension any thing that could possibly be new would be known as well. Peace Amp
Universe ~= 'God' . I did not equate. Literally imagine what I wrote that God is Bigger, Greater, more extant than the universe.Sorry, I used a bab analogy-'(sort of universal set subset type of thing)'- I'm not really going for cardinality but heres a better analogy: God = Complex # Field, Universe = Real # Field. Is that better? Thus, universe inside of 'God' ,figuratively speaking.
Now, about omniscience and omnipotence, you appear to have inserted an argument other than the one I expressed. Intellegence is a function of mind and I believe memory perhaps other qualities. Knowledge = information, Now if the information is without limit, ie. infinite knowledge then where does change come from since it can be seen that there is really no way to come up with something new when all is known and by extension any thing that could possibly be new would be known as well.
Peace Ampout of all the reading in this thread i must say that it is true that ANYTHING is possible within our existance because we are aware of ourselves and that in itself is impossible. i meen if u stop and really think about it, how the heck is it possible for u to know u exhist. that just CANNOT happen yet here we are. that is truely an enigma. i often feel that i should not be here and that this cannot be happening.
oh and i didnt see it anywhere, but this universe in this time period is roughly 11 billion years old according to astronomers who are observing the after shock of the big bang.
oh and i didnt see it anywhere, but this universe in this time period is roughly 11 billion years old according to astronomers who are observing the after shock of the big bang.
Last edited:
Amp,
Then such a god can never have a new thought -- and never could. Moreover, such a god still cannot know all of itself. And moreover, such a god can only be secondary to some encompassing universe. See the argument I started here along that line (it goes on to the end of that thread, so you'll need some patience.)
And of course, the likelihood of such a god existing is still 0.
Aware,
Not true. Any time you have a paradox, one or more of your premises is an impossibility.
So obviously it can happen, and is not an impossibility. Which should lead you to question the premises that drove you to the wrong conclusion.
Then such a god can never have a new thought -- and never could. Moreover, such a god still cannot know all of itself. And moreover, such a god can only be secondary to some encompassing universe. See the argument I started here along that line (it goes on to the end of that thread, so you'll need some patience.)
And of course, the likelihood of such a god existing is still 0.
Aware,
Not true. Any time you have a paradox, one or more of your premises is an impossibility.
So obviously it can happen, and is not an impossibility. Which should lead you to question the premises that drove you to the wrong conclusion.
Aware,
Cris
I don’t think any of that makes any sense and the support you offer for your claim doesn’t follow.
It’s called self-awareness and can be considered a result of a certain level of intelligence. Try studying neuroscience to help understand that further.
That is just a psychosis, seek help from a pychiatrist.
Cris
Cris, so are u saying that neuroscience can explain to us all why we exist? can u show me where it tells us this please? i know nothing abouot neuroscience really and if it offers an explanation of what makes us aware of our suroundings i would love to know what it is. oh and i was surprised to here your statement towards me concerning my mental stability. ive been here 2 days and already being put down. i can only assume that u were joking right?
Bambi, all i am meaning is that from my knowledge, no one knows how to make a self aware being. of course one can say we do because we make babies, but we still dont know how this self awarness gets into the physical object (our bodies). but yes it is possible for me to exist because here i am, but it is impossible for someone to give me reasons that i do. u see the only way for me to know and understand that u are aware of your surroundings is for me to actually be in your body experiencing the same things u do and for both of us to, so to speek, be One and relatively know of our existance. Other than that, u nor anyone else can prove to me that u are indeed aware of your surroundings. in a sense one can say that everyone merely believes that each other is aware of themselves. (which is kinda cool to think about heh) and so in knowing this, how can u possibly be able to explain to yourself why u are aware?
also on the paradox thing, what are u meening, sory i dont understand what u are trying to say......(i think i need more sleep to be able to keep up with these types of heafty conversations heh.)
Bambi, all i am meaning is that from my knowledge, no one knows how to make a self aware being. of course one can say we do because we make babies, but we still dont know how this self awarness gets into the physical object (our bodies). but yes it is possible for me to exist because here i am, but it is impossible for someone to give me reasons that i do. u see the only way for me to know and understand that u are aware of your surroundings is for me to actually be in your body experiencing the same things u do and for both of us to, so to speek, be One and relatively know of our existance. Other than that, u nor anyone else can prove to me that u are indeed aware of your surroundings. in a sense one can say that everyone merely believes that each other is aware of themselves. (which is kinda cool to think about heh) and so in knowing this, how can u possibly be able to explain to yourself why u are aware?
also on the paradox thing, what are u meening, sory i dont understand what u are trying to say......(i think i need more sleep to be able to keep up with these types of heafty conversations heh.)
Last edited:
Originally posted by Aware
That does not imply that it's impossible to know, all it says is that nobody has figured it out yet.
You seem to be very sure of that.
No more than you could prove to a caveman that everything is made of atoms. Perhaps when you and I know enough, the proof will suddenly become possible.
All I'm saying is that the universe is consistent. You can't have paradoxes. So if your reasoning leads you to a paradox (like: consciousness is impossible, yet I'm conscious) then one or more steps in your reasoning are incorrect. On the other hand, since you can't have paradoxes it follows that not everything is possible in the universe; all the various arrangements that lead to a paradox are impossible.
That does not imply that it's impossible to know, all it says is that nobody has figured it out yet.
You seem to be very sure of that.
No more than you could prove to a caveman that everything is made of atoms. Perhaps when you and I know enough, the proof will suddenly become possible.
All I'm saying is that the universe is consistent. You can't have paradoxes. So if your reasoning leads you to a paradox (like: consciousness is impossible, yet I'm conscious) then one or more steps in your reasoning are incorrect. On the other hand, since you can't have paradoxes it follows that not everything is possible in the universe; all the various arrangements that lead to a paradox are impossible.
i must say then Bambi, i envy u for believing that one day people will be able to figure out whether or not any living thing is aware of itself, i just cannot see it happening
also i guess i should clarify myself better when i write about the impossiblity of self awareness. I dont meen that it is impossible to occur, im thinking of how it is impossible for me to understand it.
also i guess i should clarify myself better when i write about the impossiblity of self awareness. I dont meen that it is impossible to occur, im thinking of how it is impossible for me to understand it.
Aware,
smiley at the end. With any of my posts, when in doubt assume I am joking. So please accept my deepest apologies if you were upset in any way by my post.
Unless of course you do in fact doubt your own mental stability.
Keep on posting, you're doing great.
Cris
Yes there was no offense – note I placed the
smiley at the end. With any of my posts, when in doubt assume I am joking. So please accept my deepest apologies if you were upset in any way by my post.Unless of course you do in fact doubt your own mental stability.
Keep on posting, you're doing great.
Cris
Why do you even presume tht there is an answer for "why do we exist" We exist because we are.
Humans always want to be important, but they seldom are such.
They fear to be ordinary; I fear to be ordinary, but not the cetre of universe atleast.
Cheers!