If you've a rational mind, do me a favor.

[Laeskis]

Here is something I've wanted to hear for a very very long time.
I want someone to provide a truely rational argument for the existence of God.

Note: I am not taking a solid religious stance on this and I won't debate religious principle. (perhaps debate the validity of the logic): I simply want to hear the argument.

[int]

I'm not a believer but can often relate.

1.) Comfort
2.) Faith
3.) Filling the emptyness (love?)

You might find these reasons more feeling type responses, of which I'm often guilty of (but in the end I never buy them). But just because you're a thinking type doesn't necessarily discount the emotional responses of others. The reasons seem rational to them (I've found).


The philisophical arguements are out there. How familiar are you with them (as that might be a good starting point for religious types to jump in). The Ontological, Cosmological, Design, and Moral arguements are few that come to mind. As well as the Problem of Evil, and it's excuses.

Where ya at?

[Laeskis]

A rational argument. Not based on feelings or faith. A philosophical argument would be interesting, so long as it's sound.
I've never encountered an argument that wasn't based on faith or feeling.
I want to see an argument that could actually win. All too often religious people will back themselves into a cycle of "because the bible says so" or some other argument based on faith.

[Laeskis]

Oh, and by the way, I just want to see someone elses argument. I don't want to research it. I'm not looking to prove anything to myself. I just want to see someone construct a reasonable argument that could win a debate against a nonbeliever. I'm tired of seeing otherwise intelligent people lose on this topic.
And who knows, if the argument is good enough, I may even be convinced into believing. (though I doubt it.)

[sme_bro]

this will be interesting. Has anyone read 'memnoch the devil' by anne rice, provides alot to think about as well as a very interesting (although fictional) story of religion.

I know you said you want someone to provide there own arguement but i have to say a little from the book.
God created us because he did not know where he came from, so he set evolution in motion to see if in the end beings like him would eventuate.
The devil was a just an angel who felt bad for all the suffering people on earth who died and went to sheol, so after he had broken a few rules due to his confusion at the situation god sent him to sheol to proove that us people were worthy for heaven. The devil found thousands of souls worthy and god gave them addmitance to heaven. the devil was right but it didnt make him happy because even though a few happy soals made it to heaven for every one thousands did not.
He argued with god, god banished him to earth. The devil wandered for years untill he bagan to hear of Jesus, he met jesus in the desert and relised it was in fact god who had taken the devils advice and was testing life as a human to see what the suffering was all about.
The devil scoffed at this because even though god experienced the suffering he still knew all along that he would be ok in the end and that he was god.
They argued for all of that time jesus spent in the desert but in the end jesus/god did not agree and so they parted.
God went on to suffer at the cross
the devil didnt agree
god took the devil once again for a chat and a deal was made,because the devil cared so much for all people he would be sent to earth, he would have 3 forms he could travel in. One was the typical demon form we see, the other is an ordinary man and the final form could only be used in sheol and heaven which was his natural angelic form.
His mission would be to convert all the soals in sheol into worthy soals for heaven.
So the devil sets about his work, and the reason the sins are called evil is because they are the things that will help our soals be happy(or whatever they need to be) so that we make it to heaven and the irony of this would be that fundementalist christians soals would be starved when they died and most likely all head to sheol.

im sure there is more to it, and sorry if i seemed mainly on the devils side-its what the story revolves around.
and i know i didnt think it up on my own but it is interesting none the less.
For the record i am athiest.

[Johnny]

How about you try, Laeskis?

*edit: I'm serious. There is so much outstanding philosophy that has been created on this question (Kant and Sartre are my personal favorites), both for and against God. If you're really interested in sharpening your mind for its own sake, this is the stone.

[CosmicDust]

I don't think it can be done with reason alone. There are always gonna be a few assumptions needed to make the closed logical circuit able to to reach any sort of answer to the "Does God exist?" question (including that God doesn't exist). Those have to be "taken on faith."

[Google Monster]

:ph34r:

[Johnny]

You right about that CosmicDust. No paint, no painting, no sale.

For Kant, the paint's synthetic a priori. For Sartre, the paint's death. For Jung, the paint's instinct. For Euclid, the paint's (non-logical) axioms. Maybe someday an INTP will open up an epistemological paint store and get rich. :lol:

[Avengardh]

I might be somewhat non-philosphical, but to me it's a waste of time to think about things like those...sure, I have thought about it, have discussed it with people, but there is really no way to be sure, at least, fault-proof.
Kinda like saying UFOs exist.

~*Aven*~

[int]

Oh, and by the way, I just want to see someone elses argument. I don't want to research it. I'm not looking to prove anything to myself. I just want to see someone construct a reasonable argument that could win a debate against a nonbeliever. I'm tired of seeing otherwise intelligent people lose on this topic.
And who knows, if the argument is good enough, I may even be convinced into believing. (though I doubt it.)

Why should anyone bother when the cycle is always the same? Whatever they say you will pick apart to satisfy your own agenda (which, honestly, is fine by me). If you want answers you'll have to go find them yourself instead of waiting for the great mommy/daddy figure to show you "the light."

Besides, rehashing these things would probably be redundant for the ones who are interested in the topic.

[Laeskis]

Why should anyone bother when the cycle is always the same? Whatever they say you will pick apart to satisfy your own agenda (which, honestly, is fine by me). If you want answers you'll have to go find them yourself instead of waiting for the great mommy/daddy figure to show you "the light."

Besides, rehashing these things would probably be redundant for the ones who are interested in the topic.
Part of the statement shows the point. The cycle is always the same; hence I want to see an argument which deviates from this. But no, I won't be picking apart what someone says; I may only pick apart the logic behind what they say. I'm not in a position to be dictating what someone's belief should or should not be. I am not looking for any answers; I've answered my own questions long ago, nor do I need someone to show me the light . It is a mental exercise to see if someone can logically restate an otherwise illogical argument.
In line with what I've been saying all along: I've never seen a logical argument on this premise, therefore it cannot be considered a rehash
I suppose I will give some thought to it myself and attempt to construct an argument with a sound basis. Unfortunately I don't "believe", so it will be difficult from my perspective to argue for the existence of God.

[Star Cannon]

You want rational? I'll give you rational.

In my Biology One class, we learned a little bit about the elements. There are 4 of them essential to life. Those being Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen.

Oxygen combines with hydrogen to form water -- water perpetuates itself with the water cycle.

Carbon forms with the other elements to from carbon skeletons, which make up cells, which go from there.

Cells are made of organelles that function to make each bigger organ and organism.

I see so much amazing organization, such amazing efficency that humans have yet to mimic, such thorough... precision just using CHEMICALs to signal the approach of the cell... The DNA that MAKES the cell function... that has allowed life to last for a couple billion years... And yet share the (almost) same set of organells for every eukaryotic organism on this planet. And still make up the cycles that perpetuate life -- compound that with the ability to evolve.

I think that this level of organization would prove in itself that there is a creator. However, not the same creator the christian, moslem, and other religions portray.

Star Cannon

[Laeskis]

That is a good point; and there are arguments based on the same premise.
The Idea is that there is a design apparent in nature; thus an intelligent entity must have conceived the design. Largely, the contra-argument is that upon close inspection, the design proves to be random.
I won't be providing a real contra-argument; I hope no one attempts to. The point is: This is a good, logical argument which is difficult to defeat.
Props to you.

[Laeskis]

Here's my answer to the challenge:

This discussion will require the consideration of 3 elements.

1. First-Cause Theory
2. The Cartesian "I think therefore I am" proposition
3. The Quantum "Observation Principle" (less any reference to cats this time)

The Observation Principle states that all things are only evident as probability until observed. Nothing truly exists outside of probability without having been observed by an entity.

I can say "I exist because I am observed." This can be equivocated by "I think therefore I am."

Thought is a derivitive of observation. I exist because I observe myself. I exist because others observe me. Other entities exist because I observe them.

If A exists because it is observed by B, and B exists because it is observed by C, we will eventually reach a juncture where an initial observer must exist. This equates with the First-Cause argument.

I could say I only exist because I think; I only exist because I observe myself. This would be a fallacy; as it is evident that at some point I came into being without the capability of thought or observation. It is also evident that my creators---parents---did not observe or think me into existence supported by the fact that a pregnancy is not instantaneously discernable.

Soon a fact arises: I am not probability; I exist because I am observed. I was not observed before I came into existence; no earthly entity is capable of such observation. Therefore I must conclude that I had a first-cause, first observer of unearthly origin, and this entity must be God.

I exist; therefore God must exist.

(I do so dislike being 'put on the spot' as these are not my beliefs...but ya wants an argument from me;and ya gots one. This is the best I could think up "on the fly".)

[int]

...we will eventually reach a juncture where an initial observer must exist...


Where?

In logic terms, it's still not rational - as this conclusion was jumped to with no explanation as to why the obervations cannot go on forever.

I quite enjoy these debates, don't get me wrong, but everytime it ends up in the "my logic is better than yours" circle. I know you're looking for "the real deal," as am I, but do you really think this is the way?

Actually, I'm probably just bitter after going through this tactic already, and that may be why I jump at it...this isn't the first time. Don't mind me. I'm an idiot. :)

[Johnny]

...If A exists because it is observed by B, and B exists because it is observed by C, we will eventually reach a juncture where an initial observer must exist...and this entity must be God.

I'm not clear that you can derive thought from observation, but you assume that you think in element 2 regardless and so I won't challenge you there.

Were you to offer that taking all your clothes off and jogging down Main St. during rush hour would provide satisfying evidence to warrant your assertion that you and others exist, I would not dispute it. But your argument isn't offering me a proof of God from the elements, it just takes me on a mental park ride with a big "must" splash at the end. :lol:

Keep your mind on full-throttle, Laeskis! Don't hold back int!

[Johnny]

...this conclusion was jumped to with no explanation as to why the obervations cannot go on forever.

I think that after A to B to C to X is established as people who exist in the argument, the 1st element is then being applied to make X the first cause and signal the end of the ride.

[Laeskis]

it's a common sense answer; there are only a finite number of observers in the world; it cannot go on forever.


I quite enjoy these debates, don't get me wrong, but everytime it ends up in the "my logic is better than yours" circle. I know you're looking for "the real deal," as am I, but do you really think this is the way?



No offense intended, but I cannot formulate an adequate response to your post as I have yet to determine the point.
Do you deconstruct the logic? Or do you continue to ignore the fact that this subject is simply a mental exercise?
What I can gather, is that you assume the question to be representative of some 'personal quest' or an expression of some sinister ulterior motive.
I can gain no understanding of your rationale; but it seems that you dislike this discussion, and from some maligned perspective are taking it very, very personally.
It seems, that as opposed to participating in the discussion, you are locked into a mode of attacking the premise behind having the discussion.
If it rubs you the wrong way; don't read the posts. If you want to participate; construct an argument or point out logical inconsistencies in someone elses-don't post "I don't understand why there's a discussion..having this discussion is stupid" type responses.
My apologies if this reply seems mean-spirited...that is not the intention. I simply cannot acertain why you are so negative toward this discussion.

[Laeskis]

Johnny that's a smash-up great critique.
My argument is of course, half hearted...I cannot seem to gain the proper mindset to argue fully from a position opposite to what I believe.
I can remark on the thought/observation relationship.
Thought spawns directly from observation.
I'm not certain a thought can even exist without an observation as precursor. Observation yields questions which yields thought. So thought becomes an auxiliary function of observation.
That's what I mean.
As far as proof of God from the elements:
If you must be observed to exist and no one on the planet can make the initial observation which causes you to exist, then the original observer must be God. (and not Bill Gates or someone else.)
The statement does not prove the Idea that one must be observed to exist; this simply has to be taken as an assumption (it is proved elsewhere, but that's not in the scope of the topic)... the object of the argument is to use that Idea to prove the main point.

[int]

I think that after A to B to C to X is established as people who exist in the argument, the 1st element is then being applied to make X the first cause and signal the end of the ride.


Why? How?



No offense intended, but I cannot formulate an adequate response to your post as I have yet to determine the point.
Do you deconstruct the logic? Or do you continue to ignore the fact that this subject is simply a mental exercise?
What I can gather, is that you assume the question to be representative of some 'personal quest' or an expression of some sinister ulterior motive.


Hmmm...it's possible the 'sinister quest' is my own. I'll admit that. A mental exercise is OK, I overlooked that part. Still, I think the reasons I put forth in my first response can be determined to be logical - but I can't explain why as they are reasons others have justified, with their own logic. I did put some arguements on the table. You chose to ignore them as you consider them emotional. Sorry, I don't anymore - and that's probably for another thread.



I can gain no understanding of your rationale; but it seems that you dislike this discussion, and from some maligned perspective are taking it very, very personally.



No I love it. I would have a fundamentally different method of posing the question though. Still, It's not my thread. And I take it personally because of my countless amount of time I've invested in it - I want know the answer, but I know with your set limitations you won't find one here, in my experience. If all you can find are emotional and faith based answers, why not try to find the logic in those answers?

It's very rewarding (and I'm still an atheist).



It seems, that as opposed to participating in the discussion, you are locked into a mode of attacking the premise behind having the discussion.
If it rubs you the wrong way; don't read the posts. If you want to participate; construct an argument or point out logical inconsistencies in someone elses-don't post "I don't understand why there's a discussion..having this discussion is stupid" type responses.


In a sense, yes. I tear myself up inside about the whole God thing (again, I'm a pretty well versed atheist) so much that when I see someone posing the same questions that have been asked over and over again, I get frustrated, but at the same time want to direct the conversation to a new level - if you're just playing a mind game, fine, I'm OK with that, and that's why I made a joke about myself in my last post.

I did construct an arguement - but I told you I cannot defend it, you'll need to do some research. If I could walk you through it I would, believe me. You backtracked though, saying you didn't want to research anything, in your third post. Reading that was extremely mentally frustrating to me and I reacted. "I want an answer, but I don't want to research it, but I want to be able to tear it apart if I don't buy it under the terms of what I define is 'logical.'" Aragh.

Besides, I have to read the posts - I'm a Mod. :)



My apologies if this reply seems mean-spirited...that is not the intention. I simply cannot acertain why you are so negative toward this discussion.


I don't mean to be mean spirited or completely negative. Sorry if you got the wrong impression. I take the question you've posed seriously, but have burnt myself out with this tactic as I've posed the very same question a hundred times before. I really did want to know the asnwer to your question, but if all you can find are emotional and religious reasons, then maybe that's because all there are are what you consider emotional and religious reasons. Try finding logic in that, and you may begin to understand a little further.

When life kicks your ass, it's often logical "in your mind" to turn to something, anything that will relinquish the pain of the kicking.

If you haven't seen that, or had that moment of weakness, I envy you.

[Johnny]

I think that after A to B to C to X is established as people who exist in the argument, the 1st element is then being applied to make X the first cause and signal the end of the ride.


Why? How?



Because it's a premise in Laeskis's argument for God, and it's not very useful to attack premises for not being epistomologically sound before the logic ever gets evaluated. Think of, say, poor Euclid's feelings for such a deed... :sombrero:

[int]

But the logic of the premise makes *my* head hurt. :)

Not questioning the premises as they come is not a tactic I've ever been taught or done before. Each premise in the past needed to be evaluated for validity before we can move on. Are you saying I should take it on "faith" until I've seen the entire arguement?

Or maybe my instructors for past "Logic" classes are idiots. It's entirely possible.

[Laeskis]

In response to Int's previous post (the long one):

Ah! a light appears at the end of the tunnel; we approach a level of understanding.
In this thread, the question and the answer are both of lesser importance; it is the method by which the answer is achieved that is important. I've endeavored to ask one of the most difficult, volatile and subjective questions that I could think of just for this purpose, but I could have asked any other.
I will not lie, however, and say that I've picked this question simply because it is difficult, it was also picked-as I've stated previously-because there is a dire shortage of objective, reason-based arguments for this topic.
As far as your argument is concerned; about feeling and it's role in logical thinking...I would have to say that you have a correct answer, only for the wrong question.
Example in point; If you are asked to prove 2+2=4, it would be improper to respond "Because I've absolute faith in my teacher and in my math book."
But, had you been asked "Prove to me why you believe that 2+2=4" then such a response would certainly be adequate.
The idea here is to prove, in an objective sense, the absolute existence of God....not to prove why someone would believe in that existence. So your argument wasn't ignored it was just inapplicable.
That being said, who's the next guinea pig up to bat? I've had my share of the limelight...
:)
Edit: I want to take a logic class and see if the instructors are, in fact, idiots.

[Johnny]

I'm not certain a thought can even exist without an observation as precursor. Observation yields questions which yields thought. So thought becomes an auxiliary function of observation.

...the original observer must be God. (and not Bill Gates or someone else.)

O.K., but I want to be clear that from what I see, the claims that thought is an auxiliary function of observation and that God is the original observer do not logically follow from your premises. Not to mean that I'm fashioning a counter argument to deify Bill Gates, mind you...

Induction is a powerful tool to be sure, but it has its problems when it comes to making irrefutable conclusions. You might dig David Hume's work quite a bit if you like induction and aren't familiar with him.

[Laeskis]

Statement 1:If you were incapable of observing anything, and couldn't even observe yourself, do you expect you would still think? If you've never seen or heard of anything at all..or if you've no self awareness, what would you think about? Thought is a derivitive of observation...


Unrelated Statement 2: I do suppose that it's true that logically God doesn't have to be the principal observer, but considering the first observer (the one that causes you to be) is obviously other-wordly, I wouldn't expect that kermit the frog, or George Bush, or any other natural entity, including Bill Gates could be the primary cause; so I label the other-worldly entity as being God.

[Johnny]

But the logic of the premise make *my* head hurt. :)

Not questioning the premises as they come is not a tactic I've ever been taught or done before. Each premise in the past needed to be evaluated for validity before we can move on. Are you saying I should take it on "faith" until I've seen the entire arguement?

Yeah, I'm cool. What you see in my posts are my own finished products. I wrote out a lengthy example of a guy programming a computer to spit out the lines "God exists!" on a printer whenever motion was detected from a camera lens, and then deleted it to get through to a response on Laeskis's argument. :lol:

But yes, if you were majoring in philosophy, you'd find few professors who would tolerate such tactics. It's tantamount to writing an art history paper on a particular Picasso painting and saying it sucks because there's too much blue color on it over and over without any further discussion.

[int]

The idea here is to prove, in an objective sense, the absolute existence of God....not to prove why someone would believe in that existence. So your argument wasn't ignored it was just inapplicable.

I understand that, and I still hold my ground that the points I've made are relative and applicable to *your* understanding, where an objective proof may follow.

People's reason's for belief are their own truths. Finding an objective truth is just a matter of finding someone's truth that makes sense for everyone. That is what you're asking for, given that you're asking people your question, correct?

Sorry to dwell...:)

[CthulhuLuvsU]

I find this debate interesting, and maybe my interpretation is wrong, but has anyone really debated the original question? It seems to me you all are just arguing over how to argue the intended debate.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong laeskis, but weren't you originally intending to tear apart one of those "Bible Bangers" who, for example, believe evolution does not exist because God created the world in seven days?

I feel like int's prediction has almost come true. The debate seems to be over the logic and not the matter at hand.

[Laeskis]

so the question should be rephrased:

Provide an empirical argument proving the existence of God.

[Johnny]

Statement 1:If you were incapable of observing anything, and couldn't even observe yourself, do you expect you would still think?

I don't really know, to be honest. What would Helen Keller say to this assertion?


Unrelated Statement 2: I label the other-worldly entity as being God.

Yes, I agree that we are off the ride when this particular action occurs.

[CosmicDust]

Here's my answer to the challenge:
The Observation Principle states that all things are only evident as probability until observed. Nothing truly exists outside of probability without having been observed by an entity.

I can say "I exist because I am observed." This can be equivocated by "I think therefore I am."

I don't believe in the Observation Principle as you state it. Quantum-size things generally do not exist in states that have specific neat little macroscopic-style physical quantities that humans like to measure until they are observed. They have their own little wild quantum states that do as they will, but when we observe them, our apparatus tweaks them into states that are easy to record. That's my take on it.

[Laeskis]

heh, I don't believe in the Observational Principle either. The card has a 2 of hearts on it wether anyone sees it or not. But, it's a valid point in the proof that I needed to construct.(because I was asked to)
c'mon people, it's not as complicated as we're making out....pretend it's a theorem to prove in trig or geometry class.
Find your evidence, build on it, and make an objective proof.
It's excellent analytical excercise.


edit: Thus far Star Cannon has the best argument, based on the premise that nature is ordered, and therefore must be a design, which must be created by a designer.
I exclude my argument, I want to be a spectator.
Also, Hellen Keller wouldn't be a good person to ask, observation doesn't just mean visually

[CthulhuLuvsU]

Honestly, I believe that there is no good rationale behind the existence of God mainly because those who created him have never needed a reason to believe he exists.

Let me begin this with an incredibly stupid example which may help to explain my theory.

In the natural world we can see many species of animals who form colonies. In an ant colony there is only one queen and many workers and soldiers. In a wolf pack there is only one alpha male and manny followers.
In other words, in a colony there are always fewer leaders and architects of society than there are workers and drones. Is this not also true with the MBTI personality profiles? The thinkers and creators of society, as you should well know being an INTP, are always far outnumbered by the workers, whom we all know mainly cosist of the SJ gaurdian class.

If you have ever had any experience with an SJ, which I imagine you have seeing as they are EVERYWHERE, you could probably tell that they are completely focused on performing their set task in order to provide for their family, friends, and community. As much as they love giving to their community they also love praise for what they have done. These workers ALWAYS (in my experience) have a desperate need for the recognition that they have done something GOOD for everyone. Like a dog, they need to be patted on the head for everything they do. In other words, they NEED a purpose in life.

So who fulfills this purpose? (Definitely not NT's who could't possibly care less!)
The answer is GOD!

and why not?

Throughout human history, nearly every civilization has believed in some higher power for guidance and promise to a further purpose in life.I don't think I need to give an example to prove this.

So onto your desire to find SOMEONE who can logically explain God.
My answer is there simply isn't anyone. The reason is that when a logical question is imposed on a dedicated believer the answer always has something to do with faith. I would like to say personally that the concept of faith is like someone constantly screaming in your ear. It is just stupid, but rightfully so. Honestly, when has a worker ever needed a truly logical reason to believe in something? In fact, a truly logical answer would only confuse them, piss them off, and then they would end up burning you.

Just sit back and realize that these beleivers are stupid, but they perform their function in society marvelously well. Ayn Rand hints at this idea, and Nietzsche as well (please read Thus Spoke Zarathustra as I recommended the other night. It is like a breath of fresh air to a Rational.)

Thank you for reading, or at least attempting to read, this incredibly long jumble of words that may not even relate to the topic.
I hope it doesn't piss you off too much!
[/quote]

[Laeskis]

doesn't piss me off at all...but it does boggle me.
I do say there are rational reasons. Many influential thinkers over time have come up with highly rational reasons.
Star Cannon had a rational reason...
It's just a matter of changing perspective; become objective and justify faith by practical reasoning.

[CthulhuLuvsU]

Well do you or do you not agree that the concept of God is a flawed one?

[Laeskis]

I would agree. But I'm not making value judgements on beliefs here.

[CthulhuLuvsU]

Fine! don't give me anything to fire off on!

On Star Cannon's "logical" theory:

God cannot exist because time is relative.
Star Cannon argues that there must be a creator.
Creator implies a beginning, which implies time.

I just can't bring myself to believe, rationally anyway, that the all-powerful, omnipresent being we know as "GOD" would ever "create" anything based on a system, i.e. time, that hasn't even been developed yet by his creations.
My point is that time is too simple and basic a concept to base an entire universe on.
(I had a much better response that was lost when i tried to post it. DAMN!)

[Laeskis]

Anyone can prove he doesn't exist.
Can you prove he does?

[CthulhuLuvsU]

Nope! Can't say I can, and I'm proud of it. If I ever had someone convince me of God's existence logically, I think I would go kill my self because I simply couldn't handle the shock.

[Laeskis]

If that's the case, you're missing the point of the thread.

[sme_bro]

I like the SJ worker ant theory...i keep meaning to read some Ann Rand but havnt had the time yet.

God does exist because Brandon and Nicole pray to him to help them and he always does.

done and done.

[Jkrs]

Assumptions:
Any being that fits the definition of 'deity' is infinite on all possible scales of measurement.
There are no known limits to or on existance beyond what we refer to as our universe.
There are an infinite number of infinities within an infinity.

Therefore, the entirety of existance = God.


(Note: This isn't what I believe, just something that spun off of my thought processes while reading. Feel free to demolish.)

[Laeskis]

I'm not sure I'm following the meaning.
Are you basing the proof on this Idea:
God must exist because infinity exists?
Care to elaborate?

[int]

Assumptions:
Any being that fits the definition of 'deity' is infinite on all possible scales of measurement.


I was gonna post something like this earlier. What are God's properties in the first place?



There are no known limits to or on existance beyond what we refer to as our universe.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=finite+universe

I don't buy it, but there's plenty of good reading there. Actually, if it was finite, there might be more room for God as an element that stands outside of the universe. Hmm...



There are an infinite number of infinities within an infinity.


This is why I drink.:)



Therefore, the entirety of existance = God.


Once again - I am part God. Sweet.




(Note: This isn't what I believe, just something that spun off of my thought processes while reading. Feel free to demolish.)

Actually, you read my mind with this post. :)

[Jkrs]

Laeskis:
That's about right, yes. It's based both on the definition of God, and the fact that we don't seem to have reason to believe that infinity doesn't exist. (If there's a temporally & spatially finite universe, there must be or have been some kind of non-universe. Unless that non-universe region is infinite there may well be something outside it, too.)
It's my understanding that infinities have to contain one another, as well as everything else, to be truly infinite.
If the given system contains the possibility of one or more gods (and it must, or be non-infinite), they must exist, both containing and contained by that system.

This avoids the gamblers' fallacy by assuming infinite time & space, where all probabilities will eventually reach 1.


I hope that makes sense, for something written after 2am.



Actually, you read my mind with this post. :)
Of course; I'm part God. ;)

[Laeskis]

Assumptions:
Any being that fits the definition of 'deity' is infinite on all possible scales of measurement.
There are no known limits to or on existance beyond what we refer to as our universe.
There are an infinite number of infinities within an infinity.

Therefore, the entirety of existance = God.


(Note: This isn't what I believe, just something that spun off of my thought processes while reading. Feel free to demolish.)

That's a tough one to analyze; it tends to lead into a circular thought process.
Throw in the mind blowing concept of infinity, and it gets reeeeally juicy.
At any rate, I could propose a proof which proceeds toward the same result in opposite terms.
Assume the idea of spatial infinity as an irrational concept. One could pursue the idea that all things represented in reality must end somewhere. Anything that ends must have a boundary, and thus something outside the boundary, introducing a paradox...an infinite state continues to occur.
On a Universal scale, a paradox of this nature cannot exist.
Now, considering we have assumed the Universe to be finite and considering all 'real' things have a boundary, we can infer that 'something' exists outside the boundary, and this 'something' must not be under the restrictions imposed by reality (as the 'something' would fill the remainder of infinity--if that makes sense)
I would propose the balancing factor in the equation to be God. God is the boundary between the finite and infinite--God is not constrained by reality, and thus ends the paradox by occupying the remainder of infinity.
It can be summed up in this statement:

The existence of God is proven by the Finite Universe.

Edit: this can best be described by mathematical terms. An irrational number is a number when in ratio form creates an infinite condition. It falls out of the category of reals and can be labeled as imaginary. In applying this idea to practical reality, an Infinite condition can be considered irrational, and unreal. That's how I arrived at my conclusion of a God being unrestricted by reality and supplying the offset of the paradox

Ouch. :banghead:

Infinity and God's existence....I'd say we're definitely stretching our minds another skull-size or two....good grief what fun.[/i][/b]

[Johnny]

...Hellen Keller wouldn't be a good person to ask, observation doesn't just mean visually

Well, my point was that she might be more qualified to speculate on whether the "chicken or the egg" comes first than we are, having been deprived of a great deal more hearing and seeing than the two of us, especially considering that your God argument still does not deduce the relationship you are asserting. I didn't consider that you had made your mind up on the matter. :lol:

[Johnny]

The debate seems to be over the logic and not the matter at hand.

If you mean by "matter at hand" whether or not the assumptions are sound, then perhaps yes by some. But I want to make the case that this doesn't diminish the value of exercising logic skills. When one, say, goes to trial, one has a prosecuter and a defender, and both roles begin their work with assumptions regarding guilt and innocence. Cases for guilt or innocence are made by these roles, and the jury hears arguments from both sides to choose the most favorable of the two positions - the what, the who, the when, the where, and even the why.

Logical consistency gets evaluated to trace the crime back to the defender (or not, perhaps), and juries already have an innate sense for this need. For those who kept up with the O.J. Simpson criminal case, the defense successfully argued that O.J. didn't do it because the prosecution's case wasn't logically supported, and not because O.J. did or didn't really do it - the glove didn't fit, the time frame for the crime was too small, the physical evidence was questionably maintained. Instead of the jury having to decide whether O.J. was guilty, they got to decide that the prosecution needed to get spanked for doing shoddy work for the city of L.A. (and they weren't going to get blindsided by hairstyle issues either)! It was brilliant defense work...

Ask any computer programmer what he will most likely get paid for and what will get the product out: arguing over which programming language to use or arguing how to get the desired results from the programming language compiler loaded on his computer.

O.K., I'm off my soapbox before it gets kicked out from under me... :sombrero:

[Google Monster]

After some more thinking I don't believe there is a God.

[Johnny]

What are God's properties in the first place?

Yes, this is important to establish for a good deductive argument, one that produces solid results when done correctly. Most of us consider things like omniscience and omnipotence to be properties of God. This is what kicks off the Ontological Argument. When one looks it up in Wikipedia, one will find challenges to it...none which argue that the properties of God are ridiculous, and almost all which challenge the nature of existence in order to show that the logic path of the Ontological Argument is impassable.

As some know here already, I do believe in God and like to play and debate this. I define the essential properties of God to be inspiration, muse, hope, and the future. When all is in the realm of the known rather than the realm of the want and we are in total control of destiny, as Socrates perhaps had imagined for his Republic, then I may join in the ranks of the "God is dead" chorus. Until then, I'll remain humble while I do the best work I can.

And that's the best I've been able to come up with so far to challenge the notion that God no longer has value. I've yet to come up with another way to make participating in religious ceremonies something that doesn't deserve ridicule, but open minded curiosity and respect. And yes, I do wonder what new idea may challenge and supercede this particular answer. :sombrero:

[Johnny]

Assumptions:
Any being that fits the definition of 'deity' is infinite on all possible scales of measurement.
There are no known limits to or on existance beyond what we refer to as our universe.
There are an infinite number of infinities within an infinity.

Therefore, the entirety of existance = God.

If I understand this argument correctly , existence is limited by some scale of measure (that being us). A deity, being limitless on all possible scales of measure, would then not possess the property of existence. Do you wish for God to be a diety?

I'm not sure that an infinite number of infinities is needed to resolve anything here...but I do like picturing regression.

[Laeskis]

Well, my point was that she might be more qualified to speculate on whether the "chicken or the egg" comes first than we are, having been deprived of a great deal more hearing and seeing than the two of us, especially considering that your God argument still does not deduce the relationship you are asserting. I didn't consider that you had made your mind up on the matter. :lol:

You state that the argument does not deduce the relationship.
Can you break it down and demonstrate the inconsistencies?

[Laeskis]

After some more thinking I don't believe there is a God.
Well, that's all the more reason to attempt to prove his existence. Arguing from the opposite standpoint is a more effective exercise.

[Almaviva]

" Assume the idea of spatial infinity as an irrational concept."

Why should I assume the idea of a spacial infinity? Any more than I'd assume the spacial infinity of the earth's surface, say?

" One could pursue the idea that all things represented in reality must end somewhere. Anything that ends must have a boundary"

You're saying 'anything bounded must have a boundary', okay.

Why must all things represented in reality end somewhere?

", and thus something outside the boundary,"

If there's something outside the boundary, it never had a boundary in the first place!

" introducing a paradox...an infinite state continues to occur.
On a Universal scale, a paradox of this nature cannot exist."

Where's the paradox, and why is it a paradox?

"Now, considering we have assumed the Universe to be finite and considering all 'real' things have a boundary, we can infer that 'something' exists outside the boundary,"

You seem to be assuming the Universe is finite, and assuming that it isn't finite at the same time. That this should lead to difficulties shouldn't be surprising.

" and this 'something' must not be under the restrictions imposed by reality (as the 'something' would fill the remainder of infinity--if that makes sense)"

Again, why does the "something" have to exist at all? What's logically wrong with "This is the unverse. It's finite. It's all there is."? (Or "This is the universe. It's infinite. It's all there is."?)

"I would propose the balancing factor in the equation to be God. God is the boundary between the finite and infinite--God is not constrained by reality, and thus ends the paradox by occupying the remainder of infinity. "

To me, that description doesn't sound like it means anything, any more than saying God must be the bridge between even and odd integers.

[Google Monster]

I now realize that perfection is impossible because if perfection was a possibility we would not exist. The universe will never reach perfection. So to me that would rule out an absolute god.

[Laeskis]

Almaviva; I'm glad you've taken the bait. :cheers:
perhaps I'll have a justification ready when I return from work. :hello:

[Laeskis]

I now realize that perfection is impossible because if perfection was a possibility we would not exist. The universe will never reach perfection. So to me that would rule out an absolute god. C'mon Odd One; I think you can do better than that. An obnoxious drunken redneck could prove that God doesn't exist...Ya gotta prove he does exist; that's the real challenge.

[Almaviva]

Almaviva; I'm glad you've taken the bait.
perhaps I'll have a justification ready when I return from work.

You're welcome! Bait is yummy.

[Jkrs]

Johnny:
In the model I suggested, existance and the possibilities for same within the universe is limited. If the universe is limited, it must be possible for something to exist outside of that universe. If that's also limited, there has to be something outside it as well. Eventually, you do reach existance-as-infinity.



If there's something outside the boundary, it never had a boundary in the first place!
The existance of a boundary inherently creates the possibility of existance beyond that boundary. Otherwise there would be nothing to reference the boundary against. (From which one could deduce that the boundary rests at infinity, which is no boundary at all.)

[Laeskis]

To JKRS:
I'm scratching my head now...because it seems we're thinking the same thing.

[Johnny]

3 elements.

1. First-Cause Theory
2. The Cartesian "I think therefore I am" proposition
3. The Quantum "Observation Principle" (less any reference to cats this time)

...I can say "I exist because I am observed." This can be equivocated by "I think therefore I am"...

This is where I'm coming from :sombrero: :
You establish that I think therefore I exist from element 2. When I remove element 2, what in elements 1 or 3 offer me anything to deduce that I think? There is none. We can safely say that there is a video camera existing because it is filming a mirror pointed so that it can observe itself (or at least that the mirror exists), and that there is some first cause in the chain of observed existence, but there is no proof of a thinking camera (or mirror) from any of this.

(think -> exist) is not so easily resolved to (exist -> think) without additional support.

[Almaviva]

I'm going to assume there is a reality, and that what I observe (totally ignoring nature of "I" and "observe" and so forth) has some relationship to reality. What I have to work with, while being "rational", is something like the Scientific method: Take theories that claim to reflect reality, and try to find cases in reality where they don't predict the right results, or don't fit known observation. Also, if there are two theories that are impossible to tell apart from observation, choose the "simplest" one. This bugs me a bit because there's some subjectivity at the very core of this, deciding what is simplest.

Example: Theory 1: From the first instance of that which can be called "life" on earth, things have proceeded only through chemical and physical processes. Theory 2: Since the first instance of life on earth, there has been some "design", acting against chemical and physical processes, has influenced its progress.

Here, Theory 1 seems simpler, since Theory 2 postulates something extra. So I don't "rationally" accept the something extra unless there is a really good reason for it, that is, something Theory 1 can't explain. From what I know about biology, Theory 1 is more than adequate to explain things. In fact, there are many circumstantial clues that go against "design". For example, inefficiencies in biology that seem like they were caused by random walks around local maxima, e.g. the poor design of the human eye compared to the eyes (independently evolved) of some marine animals like squids.

One question: Is the emergence of life itself something that suggests "design"? I haven't seen anything that makes this case convincingly. The Anthropic Principle confounds all these things. (I may need to preassume that since I am talking about this stuff, I can only exist in conditions that allow me to be here talking about this stuff, and anything else is meaningless, or some variation of this.)

Another question: Is there anything in the Universe that suggests "design" or "higher purpose"? Even, is there anything that isn't necessary for conscious life to exist that is here, and would suggest that we don't exist in a minimal state for conscious life to exist, but are actually in a Universe where conscious life exists to have some sort of purpose?

Along these lines, is it necessary for there to be more than one solar system in the universe? More than one galaxy? Or is the fact that we're in a huge universe a "simplest case", where something like a Big Bang occurred from a simple state, and the fact that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies is a result of this simple state. (And a state that only produced, say, our solar system would need a much more complicated set of laws.) But maybe this stuff is out there for a "higher purpose" because we're "supposed to" explore it or something.

Another question, do things like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics "need to" exist for conscious life to exist? Or are they, say, put here by some designer so that we could have interstellar travel within a human lifetime, or, say, quantum computing to accomplish whatever it is we're "supposed to" be doing? Is it necessary that we have access to all the technology we do, or was that something "put here"? E.g. do computers, radio communication, electronics, superconductivity, lasers, and so forth need to be possible?

To me, this sort of thing, where I'm not just a conscious being, but a conscious being with all this capability that doesn't have to be here, is at least some sort of case for something "higher up".

[Almaviva]

If there's something outside the boundary, it never had a boundary in the first place!
The existance of a boundary inherently creates the possibility of existance beyond that boundary. Otherwise there would be nothing to reference the boundary against. (From which one could deduce that the boundary rests at infinity, which is no boundary at all.)

Why does there have to be something a boundary references against? Say I take the group of all possible arrangements of a Rubik's Cube. This is a finite group. It doesn't seem to me to have to create the posibility of arrangements of a Rubik's cube which are possible, but not possible.

If you're saying there is a "possibility of existance beyond that boundary", you're saying there is no boundary.

[Johnny]

If the universe is limited, it must be possible for something to exist outside of that universe. If that's also limited, there has to be something outside it as well. Eventually, you do reach existance-as-infinity.

O.K., given that I understand what you're arguing, how then is the universe and beyond connected to form a deity? Your definition of a deity is infinite on all possible scales of measure, so any finite scale is exluded from a deity's properties. There's not a finite-scale-stacking-until-infinity-is-reached option available. If you mean to define any kind of existence as finite, that's included on the cut-list.

[Crazy]

In fact, there are many circumstantial clues that go against "design". For example, inefficiencies in biology that seem like they were caused by random walks around local maxima, e.g. the poor design of the human eye compared to the eyes (independently evolved) of some marine animals like squids.


So, using this logic, the poor design of one automobile vs. the superior design of another implies that they are not designed. A 4x4 can go places a Honda civic cannot. They did not evolve this way, they were designed for a specific purpose.

Question. Is there anything that man has made that did not have a purpose?



If you're saying there is a "possibility of existance beyond that boundary", you're saying there is no boundary.

When my son was one, we had all exits from the living room blocked by baby gates. This was an effective boundary for my son. However, my wife and I could come and go as we pleased. He had a boundary, we existed outside of the boundary, the boundary still existed.

[Johnny]

To me...I'm a conscious being...with...capability that doesn't have to be here...something "higher up".

If I had my way, I would run purely on instinct and not get in a knot over any "higher up" explorations. But here I am... :lol:

[Google Monster]

I'll stick with my drunken redneck thoughts for now, until I have time to think on it further. Are we talking about an "Absolute God" or just "God"?

[Laeskis]

3 elements.

1. First-Cause Theory
2. The Cartesian "I think therefore I am" proposition
3. The Quantum "Observation Principle" (less any reference to cats this time)

...I can say "I exist because I am observed." This can be equivocated by "I think therefore I am"...

This is where I'm coming from :sombrero: :
You establish that I think therefore I exist from element 2. When I remove element 2, what in elements 1 or 3 offer me anything to deduce that I think? There is none. We can safely say that there is a video camera existing because it is filming a mirror pointed so that it can observe itself (or at least that the mirror exists), and that there is some first cause in the chain of observed existence, but there is no proof of a thinking camera (or mirror) from any of this.

(think -> exist) is not so easily resolved to (exist -> think) without additional support.

Oh, I see the situation.

I've failed in my duty to communicate my argument appropriately. Element two is applied simply as a relational supporting statement and not the primary basis for the argument.

To clarify; the primary argument has a foundation on element 3. Nothing exists unless observed. (an obscure scientific principle taken as truth by many; 'mathematically' proven, so I've taken it as an assumption of truth..which is allowed in a logical argument.)
This is my context of 'observe' taken straight from the dictionary; first definition:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ob·serve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-zûrv)
v. ob·served, ob·serv·ing, ob·serves
v. tr.
To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this context only an intelligent being can observe. Not a camera.

My next premise is based on element 1. the first-cause argument. Everything exists as a cause and effect relationship. Tracking backwards one would eventually come to a First-Cause, not necessarily God...simply a First-Cause (this is an indisputed fact)

I've used this argument as a supporting statement in the proof of God in this manner:

1. It is fact that there are limited observers in the universe. There isn't an infinite number of beings in the Universe capable of observing.
2. It is a fact that you cannot exist without being observed.
3. It is a fact that no observer (restricted by reality) in the natural universe can observe you before you exist (this is a common sense axiom). This causes a problem because you evidently do exist. ( proven by element 2: You think (and observe) therefore you do exist. Look up DesCartes argument on this one...it's not in scope with the topic.)

If you use the First-Cause argument to track backwards, you would eventually reach an impasse...an observer not of this reality must have originally made the first observation before you existed.

Deduction: If there had to be a first-observer, unrestricted by reality, outside of the real universe to 'observe' you into existence; that first-observer is God, by whatever label you choose to call he/she/it.

It still boils down to: You exist, therefore God exists.

My apologies for having originally mislead the audience.

edit: there argument does not require that I prove that you think.

[Laeskis]

I'll stick with my drunken redneck thoughts for now, until I have time to think on it further. Are we talking about an "Absolute God" or just "God"?
Absolute or not, it's your choice on that one.

[Laeskis]

To me, this sort of thing, where I'm not just a conscious being, but a conscious being with all this capability that doesn't have to be here, is at least some sort of case for something "higher up".

Before I can attempt to reaffirm or confirm this argument, I'll have to make sure I've got the meaning.

Is this the flow?

1. Nature dictates simple states; nothing 'extra' exists in nature without purpose.
2.The intelligence and capability of sentient thought is unnecessary.
3. Given that 'unnecessary attributes' cannot exist in nature without purpose, it must be true that sentient capabilities exist for a purpose.
4. If a purpose has been allocated, an overall 'scheme' is implied.
5. On overall scheme leads to the inference of a higher being in the role of "schemer."
6. This Higher being is God.

??

[Laeskis]

Why does there have to be something a boundary references against? Say I take the group of all possible arrangements of a Rubik's Cube. This is a finite group. It doesn't seem to me to have to create the posibility of arrangements of a Rubik's cube which are possible, but not possible.

If you're saying there is a "possibility of existance beyond that boundary", you're saying there is no boundary.

I'll make a stab at this one:

A boundary is a devision between to entities. It implies that one condition or entity ceases and another begins. If a boundary ends one enity or condition, and another entity or condition does not begin, the boundary would rest at infinity; which I would agree really isn't a boundary at all.

[int]

When my son was one, we had all exits from the living room blocked by baby gates. This was an effective boundary for my son. However, my wife and I could come and go as we pleased. He had a boundary, we existed outside of the boundary, the boundary still existed.

Regardless of his position, a "world" outside the boundary existed, nonetheless.

[Johnny]

Darn, my post didn't take...or something. I wanted to highlight my first concern with Laeskis's argument and expand it a little more, now that element 2 has been removed with hopes that the ride doesn't collapse somewhere. But just in case there was some personal issue I'm not aware of to warrant its removal, I won't press without a nod. :sombrero:

[int]

Hmmm...did you see it actually posted at any point?

[Johnny]

I think I did...but that doesn't offer much, does it? :lol: Just making sure...

O.K., then. Take 2:


Deduction: If there had to be a first-observer, unrestricted by reality, outside of the real universe to 'observe' you into existence; that first-observer is God, by whatever label you choose to call he/she/it.

It still boils down to: You exist, therefore God exists.

Where does your first-cause theory offer God, Laeskis? You seem to be assuming that God is the first observer and then concluding that God is the first observer. :lol:


If A exists because it is observed by B, and B exists because it is observed by C, we will eventually reach a juncture where an initial observer must exist. This equates with the First-Cause argument.

You're not really offering deduction to God from your premises, Laeskis. Were we both to nod in agreement that observers both think and exist, and that there is a first observer "domino" to topple all the other observer dominoes nearby, I don't find anything in your first-cause theory to deduce that such a first observer exhibit the additional properties you are imposing - being unrestricted by reality and beyond the universe.

If you want to assert that God possesses these additional properties, that's fine. But to seal the deal on God's existence, you might want to scale back the first observer at least one more step so that you don't run into interesting questions regarding whether the first observer really exists in not also having been observed, despite the long beard, lightning bolts and cloud couch advantages.

This is exactly what I meant by the "must" splash in my first critique.

[Laeskis]

You're not really offering deduction to God from your premises, Laeskis. Were we both to nod in agreement that observers both think and exist, and that there is a first observer "domino" to topple all the other observer dominoes nearby, I don't find anything in your first-cause theory to deduce that such a first observer exhibit the additional properties you are imposing - being unrestricted by reality and beyond the universe.

If you want to assert that God possesses these additional properties, that's fine. But to seal the deal on God's existence, you might want to scale back the first observer at least one more step so that you don't run into interesting questions regarding whether the first observer really exists in not also having been observed, despite the long beard, lightning bolts and cloud couch advantages.

This is exactly what I meant by the "must" splash in my first critique.

Yep, that's all true. The 'end of the ride' as you say, does end with an assumption and not a concrete proof...and you get splashed.
It is the weakness of all such arguments as these. In this case it does lead back to a paradoxical position; that there is a first observer who exists independant of another observer. It doesn't really seem possible to go back another step. Thus it seems that you've reached the end of reality (whatever that means)
I've taken a great leap into the unknown and made the assumption that the only being that can exist outside of reality, independant of observation, is God.
I think though, that in any argument for the existance of God, there will be a level at which such a jump will have to be made.

Additionally, the proof of the properties (unrestricted from reality etc) is in the idea that no one under the restrictions of reality can observe you into existence, because that would take an observation of you before you exist...
I know I can't observe something that doesn't exist and cause it to exist...can you?
:huh:

[Laeskis]

Okay, time to attempt to tackle this:



Why should I assume the idea of a spacial infinity? Any more than I'd assume the spacial infinity of the earth's surface, say?

Well, I'd say the Idea of Spacial infinity is a scientific concept; it is proposed by science that the Universe is Infinite. That's whay we've assumed the concept of Spacial Infinity. In this argument we've taken a contra-position to this Idea; we're taking the Idea of infinite space as irrational. (A legitimate stance, there are many who would argue that an infinite space is irrational.)



You're saying 'anything bounded must have a boundary', okay.
Why must all things represented in reality end somewhere?


We are saying all things represented in reality must end somewhere based on the previous assumption that spacial infinity is irrational. If we believe that infinite space is preposterous, then our natural Idea is that it must end somewhere; otherwise we would be contradicting ourselves.



If there's something outside the boundary, it never had a boundary in the first place!


No. If nothing existed outside the boundary, the boundary would be at Infinity. That would be an absence of boundary.



Where's the paradox, and why is it a paradox?


The paradox: If there is always a boundary, and always something outside the boundary; then an infinite state continues to occur...boundaries out into infinity...Thus the universe would continue infinitely; which we've assumed to be irrational.



You seem to be assuming the Universe is finite, and assuming that it isn't finite at the same time. That this should lead to difficulties shouldn't be surprising.


Here you answer your own previous question. Where is the paradox, and why is it a paradox.



Again, why does the "something" have to exist at all? What's logically wrong with "This is the unverse. It's finite. It's all there is."? (Or "This is the universe. It's infinite. It's all there is."?)


Well, if you say the universe is finite, then you are implying it ends before infinity. If it ends before infinity, what fills the rest of infinity? Peanut butter?
Now if the Universe is infinite, we can absolutely say "this is the unverse, it's infinite. It's all there is."
But we aren't taking the stance that the Universe is Infinite...we've taken that Idea as irrational. We don't have to prove the Universe isn't infinite...we can find that proof elsewhere; it's not the scope of the argument.



To me, that description doesn't sound like it means anything, any more than saying God must be the bridge between even and odd integers.

Well, all I can say here is...if it isn't God which occupies the remainder of Infinity, what does? Do you suppose it really is peanut butter?

[s]

We are missing the X factor to create life from the nonliving in a lab.

God is the X factor.

[Laeskis]

We are missing the X factor to create life from the nonliving in a lab.

God is the X factor.

...elaborate?

[s]

Think about an experiment...if it fails enough times, then you haven't ruled out enough of the right variables, right...?

[Google Monster]

After some more thinking I believe that God is a possibliity. :blink:

[Laeskis]

Think about an experiment...if it fails enough times, then you haven't ruled out enough of the right variables, right...?

I honestly don't know. :huh:

[Laeskis]

After some more thinking I believe that God is a possibliity. :blink:

And.....
What makes you say that? Did you come up with a proof?

[Johnny]

According to some guy who's name starts with G, logical proofs don't stand on their own without support from the "outside"...if I remember this correctly.

[int]

Pffftt...what does *that* guy know?

:D

[Laeskis]

That's true, especially in this case. All logical proofs of unproveable concepts eventually become as subjective (to assumptions as opposed to emotions) as any emotional argument, the difference between the two is that a logical proof requires a method and certain steps in the thinking process, whereas an emotional argument short-circuits (or completely ignores) this type of process (or ignores thinking entirely).
Any reasoning which skips the thought process is uninteresting.

[Johnny]

Pffftt...what does *that* guy know?

:D

:lol:

Here he is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel and take a surfing trip...lots of waves to catch.

I, however, am on break... :sombrero:

[Laeskis]

Hey, I've heard of that guy before...don't recall what he did though.

[GraviTass]

What is God ?

[GraviTass]

How does one distinguish God from Not God ? Exclude all that is Not God and you are left with God -
But we are simple humans . We have no idea what constitutes Everthing Not God . Therefore we can never know whether or not there is God ...

[Johnny]

I distinguish with regard to my left and right shoulders by turning my head and focusing my attention on one side or the other.

Just kidding... :sombrero:

[s]

I am speaking in terms of theory, as we can only do in such matters. Some people tend to think like the intuitive Einstein, who said the "I like to believe that the moon is still there even if we don't look at it," where as, others like Heisenberg, believe that reality is only what can be observed.

In lab experiments trying to create life from "scratch" (nonliving chemicals into living), so far scientists have proved unsuccessful. In an experiment, you try to control as many variables as possible, but some in some experiments ("quasi-experiments") some variables are going to be unavoidably unknown. The existence of god is a possibility one at least must consider using Einstein's reasoning. Perhaps we cannot create life from the nonliving, because we just have not used the right combinations, correct stimuli, correct ingredients, high enough sampling and/or a higher power that creates life and thus life is not random or perhaps a higher power creates life and IS random or both. Einstein, however, believed "The old one [God] does not play dice."

Many scientists agree that there is a single point in which the universe was created. Many also believe that living cells are so complex of a design that there must be an architect to this design that seems anything, but random. Regardless, I believe a higher power is a possibility and a variable to be considered. To me, God is a theory no different than the big bang or any other event that I have not observed. Perhaps God is just the unknown variable that creates life, not necessarily the old grey bearded man in mythology.

Religion and creationism is another matter altogether and I am not touching that one anytime soon, but I will say that it is not based in science, therefore, cannot tehnically be theory.

Inuitive thinking "architect,"

[GraviTass]

Oh , I just thought of another possibility ; that there is nothing that is Not God . So , I come full circle ... what is God :(

[s]

Oh , I just thought of another possibility ; that there is nothing that is Not God . So , I come full circle ... what is God :(

What do you want it to be, young grasshopper? Some do believe god is diffused through all living things. The existence of god is likely beyond our mortal minds' comprehension, so find comfort in whatever you choose to believe.

[Laeskis]

I see what you are saying, S. It's a valid, but somewhat weak point.
Man's science has failed to create life; if life cannot be endowed by science it must be endowed by the divine.
A good statement to make but not sound. I bet there's a way to legitimize it though....it'd probably take a lot of thought though.
Even legitimized, it would still be weak; there is an essence of logic but it relies too heavily on induction.
The statements lack a strong relationship to each other, there are too many variables between.
There are no real supporting arguments offered as proof, just a giant assumption.
I wouldn't take my critique to heart though, I'm no expert. :-P

Anyways, it's a good Idea. I'm happy you posted it.

[s]

I see what you are saying, S. It's a valid, but somewhat weak point.
Man's science has failed to create life; if life cannot be endowed by science it must be endowed by the divine.
A good statement to make but not sound. I bet there's a way to legitimize it though....it'd probably take a lot of thought though.
Even legitimized, it would still be weak; there is an essence of logic but it relies too heavily on induction.
The statements lack a strong relationship to each other, there are too many variables between.
There are no real supporting arguments offered as proof, just a giant assumption.
I wouldn't take my critique to heart though, I'm no expert. :-P

Anyways, it's a good Idea. I'm happy you posted it.

No, you got it slightly wrong. BECAUSE man cannot create life, it does NOT mean that there is a divine, just the possibility of it. The acknowledging of the possibilty is larger than you think. ( God cannot be proven with just a little thought over a latte...well, yea.) Acknowledging that we cannot observe an electron's orbit, but it still exists was one side of a huge argument between two of the greatest minds ever, so something as minute of a detail such as a possibilty is actually... pretty valid argument. Thanks anyway. I am glad you posted the query.

Good query, old chap.

Man, your avatar cracks me up.

[Laeskis]

No, you got it slightly wrong. BECAUSE man cannot create life, it does NOT mean that there is a divine, just the possibility of it. The acknowledging of the possibilty is larger than you think. ( God cannot be proven with just a little thought over a latte...well, yea.) Acknowledging that we cannot observe an electron's orbit, but it still exists was one side of a huge argument between two of the greatest minds ever, so something as minute of a detail such as a possibilty is actually... pretty valid argument. Thanks anyway. I am glad you posted the query.

Good query, old chap.

Man, your avatar cracks me up.

Proving the possibility....that's cool. ;)

avatar....well, that guy is too much like me...less the resemblance.
Good ol' hatter.
"CHAANGE PLAACES!"

[Johnny]

BECAUSE man cannot create life, it does NOT mean that there is a divine, just the possibility of it.

Wouldn't it be more to the point that because man cannot create life, life did not spring from man...and that's the end of it? This statement doesn't appear to imply the possibility of some divine, as I understand it.

Does procreation fall in the "creating life" category?

Recently I've been thinking of ant colonies when I think of us: living, procreating, consuming energy, leaving waste, protecting the "mother", changing the landscape. We don't pay much attention to the ants were they to contemplate God, and I wonder about our limited scope and what there may be above us with their own questions and speculation.

Unless, of course, the ants have found us already in their worldview and are doing their best to keep our ears away from their laughter... :sombrero:

[Laeskis]

Ants probably would consider Us to be Gods...
Their Universe must not be very comfortable; with 6 billion Gods running amuck.
I'd say that's why they stick to themselves and work so hard.

For some reason your statements in that post bring to mind the "Fish in the Pond" story.

There was a pond. The pond was populated with fish. The fish saw their "world" and their universe but did not understand it.

The currents of the water; strange objects appearing (maybe beercans?) and all the inexplicable occurences that could occur in underwater life puzzled them greatly, but lacking a global view, or even the possibility of achieving a global view, they marked it all off and attributed it to the metaphysical...to God.

There was a Scientist among this population of fish, who had a rare gift for insight and an unquenchable curiousity. This fish was always testing the limits of its world; always examining and questioning both the occurences and objects which it encountered.

This fish Scientist, while out and about the usual task of exploring its world, chanced to encounter upon a very strange object in the water.... I can't say the fish was smart for doing it, but lacking the faculties we have for tactile observation, the fish decided to take a bite of this strange new curiosity. It turned out to be a hook on a line, and the fish was caught!

Suddenly, jerked from his world, the fish found itself in a strange new place; filled with dazzling light, a strange 'essence' caressing it's scales, an infinite blue ceiling....and several humans with fishing reels.

Now, this Fish, not being an exception to the rule that scientific types are generally not of athletic build, was quite small. (with a gargantuan jug for a head, I might add) The humans removed the hook and tossed the scrawny catch back into the pond.

The fish, back in his world, soon overcame it's shock from the experience and begin to rationalize.

It formulated relationships and began to understand how its world really worked. It wasn't metaphysical...the currents of the water were caused by wind (the strange essence). There was no existence of a singular God for his world...there were apparently many beings inhabiting this "heaven"

The fish concluded that his existence and his world was merely part of a larger whole; and that all things were explainable in that context. Everything was logically explainable and connected by causation; not merely the random acts of an Almighty Power.

The fish decided to tell all of his peers about his discoveries.

This was a bad Idea...the fish was soon ostracized from his community for being a heretic and was sacrificed to a moccasin living near the North Shore....
THE END.


(ps. this fish story is my embellishment of a similar story in the book "Hyperspace" it was an analogy originally used to describe dimensional theory....until I perverted it, that is. :) )

[Johnny]

Ants probably would consider Us to be Gods...

Interesting assertion. What are we to deserve this in the ant's eyes?

Your fish story has been told in many ways by many people. Adam and Eve were driven from paradise...punished for their newfound knowledge. :sombrero:

[s]

[quote=s]BECAUSE man cannot create life, it does NOT mean that there is a divine, just the possibility of it.

Wouldn't it be more to the point that because man cannot create life, life did not spring from man...and that's the end of it? This statement doesn't appear to imply the possibility of some divine, as I understand it.

Does procreation fall in the "creating life" category?


quote]

No, procreation does not, which is why I specified from "scratch" and "nonliving chemicals." I am talking about creating life from scratch from nonliving chemicals not an egg and sperm. Creating as in the first form of life, a simple nonevolved creature even. We do not know if man can create life from scratch (there is a good possibilty) and we do not know if life DID or did NOT originate from man/humanoid. Insert any alien conspiracies here. We actually know less than we think we do. That is why the possibilty is all I will and am arguing. Acknowledging a possibilty is actually pretty profound, because that makes for a good agnostic vs atheist argument. There is a possibility of a divine, because it has not been proven otherwise. Regardless, if there is or is not a divine, the burden of proof is on us.

Fun stuff, gentleman. happppy

Mad Hatter seems to be a good match for your personality.

[Claverhouse]

Ants probably would consider Us to be Gods...

Interesting assertion. What are we to deserve this in the ant's eyes?


I can't imagine that ants --- even the demonic hordes who are always threatening the USA, along with the swarms of Africanized killer bees and killer mosquitoes, marching to Georgia --- even know we exist. Larger animals would be just things to them: eg: those larger than three ants standing on each other's shoulders.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Few years ago I saw an old film, which I remembered as 'Leinengen and the Ants' cos it was based on an H. G. Wells story, but was apparently given ( no doubt wisely considering the feverish minds of 1950s audiences ) the more evocative title of 'The Naked Jungle', regarding a fight with an ant-army. All I can remember is that the female lead was pretty: the individual ant actors are forgotten.

Googled, and here:
The Naked Jungle - Amazon reviews (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6300215687/102-2395438-5668102?v=glance)

Gullible 70s Child discussion of Charlton Heston and his films inc this one (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/906537/posts)

[Johnny]

...we do not know if life DID or did NOT originate from man/humanoid...Acknowledging a possibilty is actually pretty profound, because that makes for a good agnostic vs atheist argument.

Well, my parent's aren't an oven and a skillet full of cornbread dough, so I can at least rule that out. But I admit that evolution may make things difficult when it comes to rolling back time...

Acknowledging possibility may be profound, but it's possible that God is the embodiment of a lazy mind and agnostics aren't getting away with anything but a less-responsive nod to slackerdom.

With the work we've done with chains of digital decisions, we've accomplished much with computers and programs. We're already in a feeding frenzy over the possibilities of artificial intelligence and the myriad consequences of such an invention, given also our continually increasing understanding of the human brain.

So what if we are able to create something that then asserts it is alive? I doubt that ants would care that we proclaimed ourselves gods while acknowledging our existence out of hunger... :sombrero:

[s]

...we do not know if life DID or did NOT originate from man/humanoid...Acknowledging a possibilty is actually pretty profound, because that makes for a good agnostic vs atheist argument.

Well, my parent's aren't an oven and a skillet full of cornbread dough, so I can at least rule that out. But I admit that evolution may make things difficult when it comes to rolling back time...

Acknowledging possibility may be profound, but it's possible that God is the embodiment of a lazy mind and agnostics aren't getting away with anything but a less-responsive nod to slackerdom.

With the work we've done with chains of digital decisions, we've accomplished much with computers and programs. We're already in a feeding frenzy over the possibilities of artificial intelligence and the myriad consequences of such an invention, given also our continually increasing understanding of the human brain.

So what if we are able to create something that then asserts it is alive? I doubt that ants would care that we proclaimed ourselves gods while acknowledging our existence out of hunger... :sombrero:

Switch your brains to synthesis and off of analysis for a second like only a true INTP can, folks.

If we create life from the nonliving, then we are a creator. This still does not disprove or prove we were created by a creator, divine or otherwise. Remember, I am not proving or disproving god, I am merely give a "nod" to limitations of science, technology, and human reasoning to know an answer either way (thus leaving the possibilty open). A more complex question to ask me would have been whether absolute truths actually exist? Let's assume there are absolute truths:

The "P" in INTP makes me want to be able to change horses in midstream and keep my options open. If I was a J maybe I would be happy to say yes there IS or is NOT a god and call it law, whether or not it is the absolute truth. "I dunno" and "there IS a possibility" are not exactly equal and I can assure you that almost anything I think (much less, Einstein's) is not the product of a "lazy mind." Einstein was hardly a lazy mind, when he asserted that electrons could have orbits, though he could not observe it. The Intuitive nature of someone like Eistein, a model of INTP-ness, simply acknowledges that one cannot wisely assume something does not exist or occur, because it is not observed. Science is constantly recanting its "truths," so were those truths ever really truths? I am simply arguing that unless there is absolute disproof, the truth is still out there... whatever that may be. Atheism and religon both hold a belief in an absolute "truth"; yea or nay one way or another.

You can know faith and you can believe in knowledge, but they are not exactly the same concept. Remember "facts" only seem set in stone, but beliefs often really are, but that does not make beliefs absolute truth. Believe what you like and take solace in whatever that may be, because likely that will be the closest to absoluteness you will ever get.

Good times, gentleman. :cheers:

[Laeskis]

I say I don't really give a whit what the ants think; if they don't acknowledge me as their God then I'll get some Ortho and show 'em a little apocalypse.
Bow down Ants, for I have come....bearing SevinDust.
Repent or be smitten by the Holy Magnifying Glass!



errrr....not really. :blink:

[s]

I say I don't really give a whit what the ants think; if they don't acknowledge me as their God then I'll get some Ortho and show 'em a little apocalypse.
Bow down Ants, for I have come....bearing SevinDust.
Repent or be smitten by the Holy Magnifying Glass!



errrr....not really. :blink:



[rapping side of seat ala British Parliament]

Hear, hear!

[Google Monster]

Nothing has ever been created. So why seek a creator?

[Laeskis]

Nothing has ever been created. So why seek a creator?

Because cooking isn't my forte.

[Google Monster]

I sought a creator until I realized that creation doesn't exist. Now I seek a truth that can answer my questions.

[s]

Nothing has ever been created. So why seek a creator?
I would love to hear you elaborate on this view.

I can understand not seeking a creator, but how has nothing ever been created?

[Google Monster]

Was going to write my reply on the fly but I think I should write it on paper in my room first to share my views more clearly.
Bad at explaining things thats why. :blink:

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

I experience the world and wonder, "How can someone NOT believe in God?"

But alas, this isn't rational for you INTP folk.

Personal experience doesn't have to be rational. One event can make you believe for a lifetime. I don't think many people begin believing by something they read. And if they do, it's not a lasting belief. If God was reached by something you read, it would be a flat and uninteresting God.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Nothing has ever been created. So why seek a creator?
Wow. Prove that one.

[Laeskis]

Odd One; think your thoughts out clear, and put them down in words so it's more shareable. I've a hunch you've given it a lot of thought.
Unfortunately you may be suffering the same problem that I sometimes suffer...
People can't read your mind; you'll have to spell out what you want everyone to know. Don't leave too much out as a result of "Oh, they know what I mean..."
I'm interested to see what you have to say.

[Johnny]

Personal experience doesn't have to be rational.
Yes, for Myers-Briggs and Jung it is a fact that our experiences are not rationally derived, though we may be in conscious control of the functions that receive them.

The drawback is that this claim can work both ways. Odd One's claim that there is no creator (no creation too, perhaps?) is no less absurd than its opposite, if the evidence for both claims are founded on irrational experience... :sombrero:

[s]

Personal experience doesn't have to be rational.
The drawback is that this claim can work both ways. Odd One's claim that there is no creator (no creation too, perhaps?) is no less absurd than its opposite, if the evidence for both claims are founded on irrational experience... :sombrero:
I am in complete agreement with this statement.


Take your time, Odd One. I am looking forward to your rational explanation.

Whether someone is an athiest, agnostic, or god-fearing, they are all beliefs and respected here. Our strong convictions, whatever they may be, may be the closest thing we will ever get to an absolute truth on this matter.


I think seeing god in all things livings can be beautiful, so is life without the shackles of theology.

Thanks for being good sports,

[Google Monster]

Please let me know if I don't make sense. Because this works clearly in my head. happppy
---------------------------------------------------------

It all started with self-discovery, but as I started to narrow down to answer the reason behind every human action I started to realize that the universe must follow the same laws. Just recently the answer hit me.
8O
The universe must follow the change constant rule which is governed by Order and Chaos. Which states that all existence must constantly change and do it in the most orderly way possible. But when the choices are limited to where all possible choices have chaotic results, the orderly way would be to choose the lesser chaotic choice.

Humans follow this rule clearly but I should give it more detail. How I know we follow order and chaos is the fact that pain and pleasure exist. Pain represents chaos while pleasure represents order. There are also two types of feelings which are mental and physical. Physical pain and pleasure isn't that complex, although mental pain and pleasure may seem more complex due to different personality types and life experiences. But all the pain and pleasure we get in life, both physical and mental decide what actions we choose. Certain mental values may exceed the physical pains and get us in a harmful choice. Or certain physical and mental pleasures may exceed the mental and physical pains and get us into bad habits.
example: Your cold and there is a fire. To most people getting closer to the fire is the most orderly choice, with the exception of those with mental reasons for not doing it like if they felt they had to prove their bravery or someone who fears fire.
An example of a chaotic/chaotic choice is a bulimic person. I'll use a female in my example so I don't have to keep saying him/her or she/he. The bulimic female mentally convinces herself that she is fat and that food makes her more fat. So she physically makes herself throw up. To her the physical pain of throwing up is the lesser chaotic choice of the mental pain of feeling insecure and fat.

Enough about humans, lets get back to the universe as a whole. Big Bang is where many believe our universe began but it is just another part of the change constant - order + chaos cycle. Something can only change so much before it changes into something that it already was. The orderly thing for all existence is to unify as a singular being or existence. But to do so would take a long time in our measurements of time because this must be achieved while avoiding chaos. But once absolute order is achieved change constant and order+chaos rules still apply. That is why the most orderly time of existence is followed by the most chaotic time of existence (Big Bang). Absolute order has no lesser chaotic choice because no order is else where so change constant forces absolute order into absolute chaos. So then the singular existence is no more and order is a part of the rules again in this infinite existence.
No beginning and no end would mean creation is impossible.

Just because we manipulate the order of something that has always existed doesn't mean creation was involved.

[s]

Please let me know if I don't make sense. Because this works clearly in my head. happppy
---------------------------------------------------------

It all started with self-discovery, but as I started to narrow down to answer reason is behind every human action I started to realize that the universe must follow the same laws. Just recently the answer hit me.
8O
The universe must follow the change constant rule which is governed by Order and Chaos. Which states that all existence must constantly change and do it in the most orderly way possible. But when the choices are limited to where all possible choices have chaotic results, the orderly way would be to choose the lesser chaotic choice.

Humans follow this rule clearly but I should give it more detail. How I know we follow order and chaos is the fact that pain and pleasure exist. Pain represents chaos while pleasure represents order. There are also two types of feelings which are mental and physical. Physical pain and pleasure isn't that complex, although mental pain and pleasure may seem more complex due to different personality types and life experiences. But all the pain and pleasure we get in life, both physical and mental decide what actions we choose. Certain mental values may exceed the physical pains and get us in a harmful choice. Or certain physical and mental pleasures may exceed the mental and physical pains and get us into bad habits.
example: Your cold and there is a fire. To most people getting closer to the fire is the most orderly choice, with the exception of those with mental reasons for not doing it like if they felt they had to prove their bravery or someone who fears fire.
An example of a chaotic/chaotic choice is a bulimic person. I'll use a female in my example so I don't have to keep saying him/her or she/he. The bulimic female mentally convinces herself that she is fat and that food makes her more fat. So she physically makes herself throw up. To her the physical pain of throwing up is the lesser chaotic choice of the mental pain of feeling insecure and fat.

Enough about humans, lets get back to the universe as a whole. Big Bang is where many believe our universe began but it is just another part of the change constant - order + chaos cycle. Something can only change so much before it changes into something that it already was. The orderly thing for all existence is to unify as a singular being or existence. But to do so would take a long time in our measurements of time because this must be achieved while avoiding chaos. But once absolute order is achieved change constant and order+chaos rules still apply. That is why the most orderly time of existence is followed by the most chaotic time of existence (Big Bang). Absolute order has no lesser chaotic choice because no order is esle where so change constant forces absolute order into absolute chaos. So then the singular existence is no more and order is a part of the rules again in this infinite existence.
No beginning and no end would mean creation is impossible.

Just because we manipulate the order of something that has always existed doesn't mean creation was involved.
Assuming there is no single point of creation and the universe continues to grow and expand: is the birth of a child, growth and expansion rather than creation? I can easily see that.

[Google Monster]

The birth of a human is using what already exist. The baby is formed in 9 months enough time for order to develop it through the food the mother eats and oxygen she breathes. Conversion is the key, the more you eat the bigger you get.

[s]

The birth of a human is using what already exist. The baby is formed in 9 months enough time for order to develop it through the food the mother eats and oxygen she breathes. Conversion is the key, the more you eat the bigger you get.
Good theory, but I am afraid we won't be getting a definitive yea or nea on whether there was an initial point of creation any time soon. Damn, mortality.

Good job,

[int]

Odd One:

Good post. Thanks. B) :)