That implies that you automatically give any claimer the credit that they are worth listening to - which further implies you have some value system in place that allows for that.
Why not just shrug them off?
Without the conviction that God is evil -how much theist/atheist debate can there be?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
That implies that you automatically give any claimer the credit that they are worth listening to - which further implies you have some value system in place that allows for that.
Why not just shrug them off?
I don't automatically assume people are idiots. I give them the chance to prove it.
not by suspending your predominantly atheistically value system obviously .....
The hierarchy still applies to whatever structure you wish to "define" out of the blue that cannot be established. That's the beauty of it.
We dont have to assume god was complex off the gate. If this is the nature of your argument than it doesent validate the position that there is not a god. We are complex and a product of progression, evolution and you say this is a result of natural occurances.
First of all we have to define natural outside its arbituary sense and we have to decide if natural and god is essentially the same (An enveloping intelligence) via evolution.
Ofcourse it could be first prior to the upbringing of our conscious state. Think about what is more complex. God (source of consciousness) creating in it self alternate states that emerge from different reality systems or is it more likely that consciousness itself is a random occurance?
Think about it like this.
All physical matter is based on some contigent matter? Your theory of nothing essentially states that all physical matter comes from the same source. We can conclude that a blade of grass and an animal are both composed of having the same organic matter. We can conclude the grass and animal will one day die and one day its matter will be apart of another system.
So consciousness develops from this physical matter at some point.
Creating a digital framework from a "non-digital" beggining.
Eventually I suspect we will be able to manafacture realities.
So we have concluded that one day we might be able to manafacture realities. We have concluded that there is a good chance an analog framework would be replaced with a digital one.
But we say that god cannot exist?
Furthermore if we believe that physical matter is always going to evolve and change its form. We can assume this to be true of consciousness. Thus I'm inclined to believe that god is this state of consciousness that will always correspond with physical matter to collapse its wave function. The fact that physical matter can ONLY EXIST with a perspective is enough proof that god exists.
Think about it. Monkeys throw tools at a wall, your saying eventually this state of "nothing" will turn into "something" and become a car.
Fine.
But a car with GPS, its own system of thinking, etc..... Impossible.
What makes you think the conscious state is natural? God created "a" universe that has very specific and limited expression? Relative to what? Do you know how other universes are like?
If something simple can create something complex, than god is possible. Your not saying "Simple can create something complex" your basically saying something simple will create a hardwired biological system that runs multiple software programs so the operating system is of value??
Its not about emotional comfort. Its about logic and rationale. Matter will never die and neither will consciousness for it assigns matter value and turns it into a fixed state. We can conclude that this is one alternative state relating to reality based on the material or data we can infer from this is just one reality based on our evolved senses and its corresponding nature.
You dont understand how your theory of nothing links to god so well. You have a predisposed bias in creating an alternative theory without god but little do you realize the implications of the things you state. Your essentially saying "Everything" "Infinity" can come from "Nothing" "Non-Existance" You are proving the case for god with your philosophy.
You have no premise for reality besides nothing its nothing but a convinient position to take relating to this question. You can post scientific jargin about the state of nothing but you have literally nothing to base this on no pun intended.
Thats not true. That can be said about western religion systems but they arent even the oldest religions. We cant even use god and religion interchangabely. Your image of origin is nothing which is the definition of god to alot of people especially eastern based religions.
God is the physical matter (point) that triggered the instanteous acceleration onward that eventually evolved itself into consciousness based on mere possibility.
Vaccum decay is the ultimate ecological problem. In the new vaccum there are new constants for nature after vaccum decay nothing can be predicted are you saying its impossible for us to be living in a false vaccum?
Are you saying its impossible for there too be "many worlds, realities, etc." once a quantum event happens that causes the universe to decay from a false vaccum to a true vaccum state??
Your basing everything you know off one possible inter. of this matter? You invalidate god.
The complexity and evolution of the cosmos is why I believe in god. I believe there are innumerable alternative states to reality.
Thus I have to believe god is the enveloping intelligence matter and everything we percieve is based on.
You don't understand evolution, which is a fact, by the way. Chances occurring all in a row in a brief time is not the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design; natural selection is, and this is accumulative over time on the already stable platform of the organism. Nor are monkeys or tools or walls nothing.
Try again. A hurricane blowing through Boeing's warehouse of parts is not going to produce a 747 Jumbo Jet. This kind of nonsense is about all the IDers can say, a ploy that falls as flat as a duck hitting a wall.
Of course we do. Intelligence, remember? Even ultimate.
Yes, yes, and yes, and I can already manufacture and control the "reality" of my lucid night dreams.
Conscious depends on having a brain, and is a process of the brain. It can even "die" by having anesthesia applied to the brain. No brain life, no consciousness, and then fully dead.
Matter lives on and may form part of another person sometime.
'God' is hardly nothing, but even quite its opposite.
All 'nothing' can do is become a balance of opposites, which is even what we see in the 'elementals', as even expected, for there's nothing to make anything of.
And, yes, these 'elementals' go on to compose all, which we also see.
You have glombed on to just a word, 'consciousness', which is really a brain process, and have it somehow floating around all by itself.
Lmao evolution and the premise of origin has nothing to do with eachother. It seems likely you have no idea what evolution is about.
What your saying is there is an enveloping intelligence that ensures the survival or species relating to there enviorment?
And this is a law of the universe that exists - just because, correct?
Needless to say one can conclude that god is the premise of our consciousness state. From what your telling me it seems the cosmos itself is evolving and this is the biggest indication that god has to exist. Unless you think we are the only end-result of this matter evolving itself and if you say that evolution is exclusive to biological systems like us.
My point exactly which would have been impossible before a certain point. So lets assume that we will fine-tune "lucid dreaming" more extensively. After a certain point, wouldent we become god ourselves?
Which makes the case that the consciousness state itself is god and that the illusion of time decieves us to assign meaning to physical reality from our focal point?
Exaclty why I dont believe our consciousness is neither dependant or indepednant in biological systems and that were merely an experience, an expression from the same fabric of consciousness.
We are all the same, all consciousness, just under different conditioning, circumstances, variations in matter through genes, etc. This fabric of consciousness is god. Im not saying that we are all god thus we should be immortal.
Think about what your saying. Matter lives on and may form part of another person sometime.
Another consciousness. (The same consciousness in a diferent expression)
The same god in another experience to decieve us into thinking there is a you and a me to assign meaning to reality which would be otherwise negated if we truly understood the nature of god.
What are you talking about? God would be "Nothing, everything, anything and something" the illusion of time has you on a standstill in your quest for knowledge or rather on your quest to provide an alternative to god.
Nothing is a balance of oposites? God must be nothing than.
[/quote]
So your saying consciousness is merely the end result of a brain process that came from nothing?:bugeye:
None of this has been established at all, but for matter living on that might make a new person, which is various matter from anywhere, the consciousness and the person's experiences in it being new, too, having no memory of the various matter parts that may have been in past people or dinosaurs.
It's but a very loose zen of now and then and when, kind of a secular afterlife with amnesia.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
God's personality is basically irrelevant to the God of natural theology -- the object of the first-cause, design and similar arguments of philosophical theology.
There's no reason to even imagine God as a "person" outside the context of one of the personal theistic traditions. That's where God's personality does have some relevance.
Even leaving aside the question of whether God actually exists, there's still an ethical question of whether the image of 'God' promoted by a particular religious tradition is a suitable moral object of human worship. If a particular myth portrays its 'God' character as evil, then it could be argued that moral problems confront that deity's devotees whether or not the deity exists.
There's no reason to even imagine God as a "person" outside the context of one of the personal theistic traditions. That's where God's personality does have some relevance.
Even leaving aside the question of whether God actually exists, there's still an ethical question of whether the image of 'God' promoted by a particular religious tradition is a suitable moral object of human worship. If a particular myth portrays its 'God' character as evil, then it could be argued that moral problems confront that deity's devotees whether or not the deity exists.
Emulating God as a "role model" could get one into a lot of trouble.
You are dishonest as usual. None of these are about your nonexistant god being evil. And where do you see anything that indicates that i believe a god exists? Have you been eating mushrooms? You'd have to be hallucinating to think that. My guess is you're just trolling.
None of what you say is established, than?
My point about matter continuing to create new conscious states demonstrates the 'thread of consciousness' being weaved into perpetual states of contigent matter which demonstrates that there must be a god.
Again. There is no "you", "me" personifications are apart of our delusionary complex that has to be for reality to be assigned meaning in a pre-determined state combined with instances of free will.
This is what I believe god to be. I believe there are innumerable alternative states, everything essentially exists and anything in different
The world is only a world, the universe is only the universe with a perspective. We have nothing to infer from to visualize what an undefined state may look like with no position of perspective. We cant assume photons collapse a wave function because those photons without being apart of a biological system are not yet defined.
We are all god, Sci. For you see, consciousness is not independant of physical reality. Consciousness is contained in biological systems that resulted from this onward expansion of space from a single point.
For that to make sense, the anthro principle in its broadest sense we have to assume there are innumerable states reality can and will be based on.
Your argument is circular, it's pointless Sci. You undermine the concept of god with your own suppositions that are more or less based on western religious systems and your only point is subect to interpretation or what came first this ultimate source of consciousness that transcended physical matter or us independantly.
My bet is on random chance that god exists if we lend this sheer probability as a refutal for the anthro principle. Than I bet on design for evolution (natural selection picking out the weakest and leaving the strongest) as a means to sustain this conscious state which is god (physical matter attempting to experience itself to migrate from an analog framework to an evolved "digital" framework for reality)
Can this universe and everything we percieve with our senses just be one false vaccum state out of innumerable ones based on the constants that are true in our given existance? Ofcourse which is what inclines me to think there has to be a god.
You agree there is an enveloping intelligence the universe is designed with? But find the possibility of god to be non-existant?
Why?