The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here

[Dywyddyr]

Bottom line is we have no idea why the Creator came here. We have no idea why he did what he did. My assumption he created us as a more perfect life form than were he came from.

Assumption based on what?

Furthermore, it is my assumption he was made eternal, always has been always will be.

If he always was then he wasn't ever "made".

From that, I assume there are more eternal beings from were Yahweh came.

An assumption based on an assumption? Wow.

Many theist would never admit it, probably don't even realize, but the bible is the book of good and evil. God is the god, so who is the evil?

If you don't know who (or what) the evil is then how can you claim that the bible is the book of good and evil?
And how do you "know" it's the book of good and evil?

 

[SciWriter]

Bottom line is we have no idea why the Creator came here. We have no idea why he did what he did. My assumption he created us as a more perfect life form than were he came from. Furthermore, it is my assumption he was made eternal, always has been always will be. From that, I assume there are more eternal beings from were Yahweh came. If he left he left for a reason. In the bible it talks about the constant wars in Heaven. Maybe when Heaven is brought to Earth Humans will be the tipping of the balance to win the war in our favor. Now, we have the anti-christ, and Satan. Satan was created by God, so I dont believe he has the power to conjure the anti-christ, however, he theoretically is on board with it and thats were his betrayal comes in. Who has the power to create another christ? A false christ. How about a false god? We understand very litte about the origins of anything before written history.

Many theist would never admit it, probably don't even realize, but the bible is the book of good and evil. God is the god, so who is the evil?

Most of this is just the senseless multi-layering onto a premise that hasn't been shown, yet a typically human endeavor to go on "as if".

 

[SciWriter]

Equi-probable?

Which is more likely, a natural happening or a miracle?


Reality must be one and single, because plurality implies relations, which unwillingly asserts always a superior unity, for a plurality has parts. Our traditional metaphysics would be the study of extreme views, and neutralism would be their rejection, a middle path.

Take the extreme of absolute existence versus complete unreality and total illusion. Each can be shown to be absurd, as logically indefensible. This is “something or nothing”.

Absolute existence, whether through the forever God or just through basic stuff forever, would then be there without a source, all defined and made without ever having been. This is incomplete.

Absolute non-existence fails because there is something, leaving ‘nothing’ incomplete as well.

So, there cannot be a permanent existent source and yet there is something, and neither absolute existence nor unexistence is tenable, and it is that this situation doesn’t need to be resolved into one or the other, for it can’t be, but into a middle, neutral state. A near but still loose analogy might be that both ultimate solidity and complete vacuity are each impossible states, leaving unity as the in-between, such as in infinity*0 =1 (finite unity). Or infinity*infinitesimal=1. Totality is thus both extremes, yet neither.

Or, even if we conclude that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible we are not actually forced by abductive reasoning to adopt a neutral position. There remains one other possibility, which is that the universe does not conform to any logically defensible metaphysical position, that the universe is unreasonable.

In either case, we are free to be, and this is quite the liberation. We must answer all metaphysical questions or none at all. (some of this is borrowing from Peter Jones)

 

[SlidesandScaffolds]

The following is in response to the OP and the resulting arguments:

1) "The unestablished God" is a faith-based hypothesis that some of us are still trying to figure out. No, we do not have conclusive evidence, but nor do we have evidence to the contrary. Until there is something for one side or the other, it's really a matter of picking a preferable position based on our own experiences, beliefs, and opinions.

When the apple fell, it was up to Newton to figure out whether he would run with the idea that something made it fall or accept the fact that it did fall and never do anything with the information.

For me, I see a beginning to things, and I see an end. I also see things that endure outside of life and death, beginning or ending - emotions, drive to survive, energy, forces, quantifiers and qualifiers (in terms of how we communicate concepts), etc. It is my choice to believe that something outside of these, or maybe encompassing all of these, exists. In my mind's eye, I see how each of these things is connected with the other, and to me God is responsible for the connections.

I go through my life looking for evidence to pass on to a coming generation that might be like minded. I pass on what I have found, and hope that some day the issue can be resolved one way or another. If I sway more people to my side, well then they are welcome to help look. I respect that other people are working to disprove what I hope to be fact. I only wish they would respect my ability to conduct experiments next to them.

2) I will allow that there has been egregious violence when one man decides that his theory is better or more right without evidence. I will allow that there are some radicals that say justice (or support of their theory) must be meted out by destroying the opposing experiments in bloody sabotage. How many hard-paid-for pieces of lab equipment have been shattered by thoughtless raging? (rhetorical question)

This is an example of poor teaching. Someone did not teach their student the fundamental laws surrounding the experiments being made. The student assumed the answers are readily available to fling at their opposing classmate. When they are proven not to be, human pride flairs up, and conflict ensues.

3) The argument that "God did it" is annoying. I grant you that. However, not every Christian uses that as an argument against everything, and we are capable of accepting scientific fact.

4) You have always been free to choose. That is your God-given right (excuse the term). However, it is also our right to share our points of views. We cannot be certain that what we have theorized and chosen to believe is the all encompassing Truth until we reach the end. Sadly, however, once we reach that point, we can not come back and share what we have learned. We're always going to be researching and learning.

Enjoy the search. Use what you find on the way to Discovery to better your fellow man. Do I want you to join my side of the table? Of course, because I'm human. I like to be right. I hope that if I find anything, there will be many to share it with me. Still, I don't feel like dragging scientists from the other side of the room over my table just for the sake of having them. So do not state that idea of "God" is a simpleton notion, when all that shows is your ignorance and inability to allow others to choose/think for themselves.

 

[SciWriter]

You have always been free to choose. That is your God-given right (excuse the term).

Yes, free, always, because nothing can be shown or known for sure about the essence of existence, not because of presuming that 'God' gave a right.

 

[SciWriter]

(More from petej)

Our theories are beset on all sides by intellectual dilemmas, ignoramibuses, contradictions, explanatory gaps, missing ingredients, antinomies, undecidable questions and other barriers to knowledge. It is inevitable that for every conceiving observer there will be one phenomenon that is inconceivable and unobservable, namely that which conceives and observes.


Mind/matter:

Pepperell writes,

The uncertain relationship between mind and world has of course generated countless finely nuanced philosophical arguments. But, put starkly, it seems there are three options:

That the mind and world are distinct.

That the mind and world are unified.

That the mind and world are both distinct and unified.

The last on is the solution offered by Nagarjuna. The idea that there could be a middle path between Internalism and Externalism seems ‘illogical’ and yet this is the only alternative to the demonstrable absurdity of the extreme views. Internalism and Externalism would be false but each would be half-true as aspects of the ultimate truth.

 

[SciWriter]

So do not state that idea of "God" is a simpleton notion, when all that shows is your ignorance and inability to allow others to choose/think for themselves.

As I gave reason, so should you try to give reasons why the notion can go somewhere, which would be thinking for one's self.

 

[SciWriter]

Avoidance and neglect: It is reported that some of Galileo’s clerical opponents were loath to gaze through his telescope to take a closer look at the planets, sun and moon for fear that what they saw would violate their beliefs.


Very few seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds – justifications, explanations, forms of consolation without which they can’t go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questionner.

Anne Rice Marius - The Vampire Lestat​

 

[lightgigantic]

One cannot use beforehand towards the proof the result of what one has not proven ("generally understood").

Aside from the very nature of it relegating your mode of "proof" to grossly inadequate, the fact that you haven't batted an eyelid about how your ideas of time zero etc are completely steeped in theory and not proven seems to indicate you are using a double standard.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Which is fine, and correct.

except for your use of the word "triple confirmation"

Already said that it could be the Creator's method.

then your argument about it is getting hazier by the moment ....

 

[SciWriter]

then your argument about it is getting hazier by the moment ....

Remember that this is toward having a Creator, but so it be hazy if you like, which, I suppose, is because of the "could be".

So, on the other side, how come evolution does not have even triple confirmation (even one would have been enough)? Or can you still not talk to it?

 

[SciWriter]

‘An electron is a wave’ and ‘An electron is a particle’ would not form a true contradictory pair. The correct negation for the affirmation ‘An electron is a wave’ would be ‘An electron is-not a wave.’ Consequently, we can assert that an electron is both a wave and a particle or neither a wave nor a particle and neither assertion can be reduced to absurdity in logic. They are reasonable ideas even if they are incomprehensible.

In dialectic logic when we ask whether the universe begins with Something or Nothing we are breaking the rules. The true contradictions would be between Something and not-Something, Nothing and not-Nothing. If, therefore, we answer ‘no’ to the Something-Nothing question then our answer would be paradoxical or illogical only in the sense that it is impossible to imagine a phenomenon that is not unambiguously a member of one or the other category. This failure of imagination has no bearing on the formal reasonableness or even the plausibility of our answer.

a) All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible.
b) A neutral metaphysical position is logically defensible.

c) The universe is either metaphysically neutral or paradoxical.

There would be a certain sense in which Materialism is true and a certain sense in which Idealism is true; a sense in which the universe is eternal and a sense in which it is timeless; a sense in which we have freewill and a sense in which we do not; a sense in which consciousness exists and a sense in which it does not, and so on ad infinitum for the attributes of the Absolute, and also a sense in which the Absolute has no attributes, and even a sense in which there is no Absolute. It is difficult to pick a fight with a neutral position and its implications are not immediately threatening to our worldview or lifestyle in logic, where even if we understand the implications of out conclusions we can never be quite sure that we have not miscalculated. (via Petej)

 

[lightgigantic]

‘An electron is a wave’ and ‘An electron is a particle’ would not form a true contradictory pair. The correct negation for the affirmation ‘An electron is a wave’ would be ‘An electron is-not a wave.’ Consequently, we can assert that an electron is both a wave and a particle or neither a wave nor a particle and neither assertion can be reduced to absurdity in logic. They are reasonable ideas even if they are incomprehensible.

In dialectic logic when we ask whether the universe begins with Something or Nothing we are breaking the rules. The true contradictions would be between Something and not-Something, Nothing and not-Nothing. If, therefore, we answer ‘no’ to the Something-Nothing question then our answer would be paradoxical or illogical only in the sense that it is impossible to imagine a phenomenon that is not unambiguously a member of one or the other category. This failure of imagination has no bearing on the formal reasonableness or even the plausibility of our answer.

a) All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible.
b) A neutral metaphysical position is logically defensible.

c) The universe is either metaphysically neutral or paradoxical.

There would be a certain sense in which Materialism is true and a certain sense in which Idealism is true; a sense in which the universe is eternal and a sense in which it is timeless; a sense in which we have freewill and a sense in which we do not; a sense in which consciousness exists and a sense in which it does not, and so on ad infinitum for the attributes of the Absolute, and also a sense in which the Absolute has no attributes, and even a sense in which there is no Absolute. It is difficult to pick a fight with a neutral position and its implications are not immediately threatening to our worldview or lifestyle in logic, where even if we understand the implications of out conclusions we can never be quite sure that we have not miscalculated. (via Petej)

:m:

 

[SlidesandScaffolds]

Yes, free, always, because nothing can be shown or known for sure about the essence of existence, not because of presuming that 'God' gave a right.

I did ask you to "excuse the term". I did not say you aren't allowed to disbelieve either. I am disputing your use of "simpleton", which I admit I should have emphasized more. Maybe bold face it so it seems like I'm shouting? A few exclamation points to drive it home? Not sure.

A simpleton is defined as a foolish or gullible individual. You are presuming that everyone who is believing in God is basing their faith off of something foolish/unreasonable. Because you have set up this bias in your argument, I am forced to believe that no matter what argument I make, you will already have questioned my level of intelligence and will consider the opinions/beliefs set forth as invalid without even trying to see where I am coming from.

This belief is set up when I explain in the posts where I believe God exists - in the connections between scientific theories. Want something further?

Life is a big ball of chance. It can take one try or it can take a lifetime of trying to get the timing just right and the data lined up just so in order for it to come about. Not to mention all it takes to ensure the life keeps going after its successfully formed. There is disease, chances of a fatal accident, competing/dominating predators, or the possibility of a freak weather/meteorological incident (see the listing at the bottom of http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html for a short list). If one spends enough time looking at the chances of death, eventually they'll see it everywhere, and I find it personally amazing that I am still alive considering the amount of random accidents and incidents I've been involved in. Could it be pure chance? Sure it could. However, I like to think there's a God who's taken a fancy to the creatures on this earth, and He puts a hand in now and then so we keep ourselves going.

Then we have what life is made up of essentially, we'll use humans as an example - "carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus along with trace amounts of elements like sodium, potassium, iron and copper" (courtesy of research, but I needed a quick reference so here http://eview.anu.edu.au/anuuj/vol1_09/pdf/01.pdf). Each of those can be broken down into smaller components, and who knows? Maybe we'll finally break those components down too. I see these things together, and I wonder what the chances are of each component coming together with the other, and when it gets too random, yes I assume God had a hand. Do I stop there? No. I continue searching for another explanation.

Again, I'm not saying you can't disbelieve. Just don't assume people who do are idiots.

 

[wynn]

Things can possibly be derived, but if not always, then it makes those undecidable and renders all philosophy moot, and this will become my conclusion in the second post to come next.

"Deriving the Creator" is a contradiction in terms.

"To derive that which must be" is a contradiction in terms.

You need to redefine God first then, if you want to talk about "deriving God" or "deriving that which must be."

As long as God is defined as "the source of all sources" or as "that which must be," we cannot speak of deriving God.

That which must be cannot be derived.
The source of all sources cannot be derived.
This is so simply by virtue of logic.

It will then be a wonder, and a further subject of study of the human condition, as to why senseless discussions continue on tangents that have already presumed the unproven 'God', such as about the Trinity or something that can't matter without the Creator having been identified.

Of course such discussions matter, even if we don't have certainty about what we're talking about.
Half the time, these discussions are not directly about the topic, but are more a battle of wills.

- me and LG.

 

[wynn]

Avoidance and neglect: It is reported that some of Galileo’s clerical opponents were loath to gaze through his telescope to take a closer look at the planets, sun and moon for fear that what they saw would violate their beliefs.

Very few seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds – justifications, explanations, forms of consolation without which they can’t go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questionner.

Anne Rice Marius - The Vampire Lestat​

The four types of wicked or bad persons, who are characterized according to their propensity for fault-finding*:


1) Asādhu (“wicked person”) — An asādhu sees some good qualities in others but presumes that eventually those good qualities will be overshadowed or spoiled by some fault. For example, upon seeing someone working for another person’s benefit, the asādhu will conclude that eventually he or she will want to exploit the person whom they are helping. Simply put, asādhus are not gentlemen.

2) Asādhutara (“very wicked person”) — An asādhutara is even more improper. He or she sees only faults in others and overlooks others’ good qualities. “This sannyāsī eats ghee rice to fill his stomach. He is lusty and should be considered fallen.”

3) Asādhutama (“especially wicked person”) — An asādhutama takes small faults and magnifies them, seeing no good qualities at all. Viswanath gives an example: An asādhutama will criticize and condemn a renunciate as being a “bogus rascal”, for the fault of giving up the forest and living in the house of a married man. The asādhutama will conclude, “His obvious motivation is only to steal the money of that householder.”

4) Aty-asādhutama (“extremely wicked person”) — An aty-asādhutama sees faults in all others, even where there are no faults. “In this world, or in this society, no one is good. Everyone is evil.” They are the very worst.



Which one are you?

 

[SciWriter]

Thanks for the input, SlidesandScaffolds; that’s what I’m looking for.

We have to remember that life did not come about all at once through ‘chance’, but via accumulations over time upon already stable platforms, the unstable not having survived; so, it is that natural selection is the scientific alternate to intelligent design, not chance, but IDers wish to portray this false simplistic notion, especially with the famous, ill-conceived claim of analogy that a hurricane hitting Boing’s warehouse could not assemble a 747 jet.

Evolution does seem to be a mindlessly and numbingly slow process, taking billions of years, and that goes along perfectly with how it is thought to operate, death being the chooser of the pointless from the pointless, the wise from the silly, so to speak.

The human brain does often leap to simpleton notions, and that’s really something we are identifying in this thread. Someone may being feeling great one day, coming from from work to noisy kids and pets, and enjoying them, but on another day, being anxious, get irritated and blame the kids or the pets for the ‘annoyance’, for the brain has simply assigned the cause to what just preceded—the noise, not the anxiety state, and so it is again that we cannot just go by internal sensation, but must also be informed by externals that the internals alone can be blind to.

 

[SciWriter]

You need to redefine God first then, if you want to talk about "deriving God" or "deriving that which must be."

This may be over-inclusive, but is what I get about 'God', at least from the three main religions:

0) God is fundamental and responsible for everything.

1) God has mind.

2) God is involved in every happening, every interaction.

3) God is everywhere.

4) We are God’s special creation.

5) God listens to our thoughts.

6) God operates from a supernatural dimension.

7) God places a soul in every human.

8 ) God published a book.

9) God performs miracles.

10) God is good and loving.

11) God provides an afterlife.

 

[SciWriter]

Which one are you?

I try to deal with the pro and con of ideas here, not people personally.

As for the nature of people, there is a range from so-called good to bad traits.

In forums, there can be many shady ploys attempted, but they don't usually pass muster, since eagle-eyed forum members are wise to these, among which may be not answering, neglect, deflection, general broad-brush statements claiming something but obviously showing no specifics, insults, and pusedo-science using scientific lingo pretending to say something.

 

[kx000]

Most of this is just the senseless multi-layering onto a premise that hasn't been shown, yet a typically human endeavor to go on "as if".

See first sentence.