If God has always existed and created the world.

Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

kxmode
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

10 Apr 2009, 8:47 pm

Henriksson wrote:
kxmode wrote:
@Henriksson -- the ego of man is amazing. I'll let that sink in.

Yeah, they think there's an incredibly complex being beyond their understanding that cares for them.


Because it can't be explained through science then it must not be so. That's the ego of man.

Do you know why I believe in God? It's not because of religion, or any organized religion. It's because I'm an artist. As an artist, who loves to create things, I can't imagine living in a world where I see humans create wonders, but the world, nature, and the universe simple happened by chance. When I think about it it sounds like madness.


_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 Apr 2009, 8:51 pm

Henriksson wrote:
Also, Isaac Newton spent more time on alchemy than he did with his science experiments. Guess what yielded more results.

His theological work, duh! :P



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

10 Apr 2009, 8:51 pm

kxmode wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
kxmode wrote:
@Henriksson -- the ego of man is amazing. I'll let that sink in.

Yeah, they think there's an incredibly complex being beyond their understanding that cares for them.


Because it can't be explained through science then it must not be so. That's the ego of man.

Do you know why I believe in God? It's not because of religion, or any organized religion. It's because I'm an artist. As an artist, who loves to create things, I can't imagine living in a world where I see humans create wonders, but the world, nature, and the universe simple happened by chance. When I think about it it sounds like madness.

Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I don't have any imagination. I like the world of fiction, and I for one find the world of myths and human imagination to be fascinating. But I treat fiction they way it is, pure fiction.

You gotta do with what you've got. :wink:


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

10 Apr 2009, 8:53 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Also, Isaac Newton spent more time on alchemy than he did with his science experiments. Guess what yielded more results.

His theological work, duh! :P

Oh yes, sorry. :oops:


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 Apr 2009, 8:54 pm

In any case, the point about the sky hook reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQY ... annel_page



kxmode
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

10 Apr 2009, 8:54 pm

Henriksson wrote:
Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I don't have any imagination. I like the world of fiction, and I for one find the world of myths and human imagination to be fascinating. But I treat fiction they way it is, pure fiction.


That's a good point.

Interesting discussion Henriksson. I enjoyed it. Thanks!


_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 95
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Apr 2009, 10:44 pm

kxmode wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
kxmode wrote:
@Henriksson -- the ego of man is amazing. I'll let that sink in.

Yeah, they think there's an incredibly complex being beyond their understanding that cares for them.


Because it can't be explained through science then it must not be so. That's the ego of man.

Do you know why I believe in God? It's not because of religion, or any organized religion. It's because I'm an artist. As an artist, who loves to create things, I can't imagine living in a world where I see humans create wonders, but the world, nature, and the universe simple happened by chance. When I think about it it sounds like madness.


As an artist, a poet, a cook, a designer, and a bicycle rider I am delighted that the energies and the matter of the world are continually experimenting with each other to produce the most amazing combinations. No need for some old imaginary Fart to diddle with reality. Reality does very well on its own. It's not random. Each experiment arises out of a previous one.



richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

11 Apr 2009, 10:41 am

i think god was just sitting most of the time. in a space ship, giving directions. over here, look at that nice blue planet! i bet it can support life. now bounce wit me, lemmie see yo shoulda lean


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


alba
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 756

12 Apr 2009, 1:11 pm

I believe in god but without being a person or having a gender or having creative agency or separate from the creations normally attributed to it. God is mathematical.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 95
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2009, 1:29 pm

alba wrote:
I believe in god but without being a person or having a gender or having creative agency or separate from the creations normally attributed to it. God is mathematical.


As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

12 Apr 2009, 1:45 pm

alba wrote:
I believe in god but without being a person or having a gender or having creative agency or separate from the creations normally attributed to it. God is mathematical.

God is a bit like mathematics, at least, in that mathematics are absolute and objective, but they don't deal with reality.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


alba
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 756

12 Apr 2009, 6:07 pm

Why should God have to deal with some flakey human construct of reality? And who decides what's real and what isn't? What is just is. And what is--in its core--is a mathematical structure and function.

The universe can't be divided up into dichotomies, as much as we would like to think it can. The universe doesn't care if we say something doesn't exist just because it transported into another dimensional frequency. Or when something arrives into our dimension from another dimension for a few seconds....we say it couldn't be real....because we can't explain where it came from..

Just because we can't explain it.....doesn't make it unreal.
And just because we think we can explain it....doesn't make it any more real than what we can't explain and consider unreal.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2009, 6:16 pm

alba wrote:
Why should God have to deal with some flakey human construct of reality? And who decides what's real and what isn't? What is just is. And what is--in its core--is a mathematical structure and function.

The universe can't be divided up into dichotomies, as much as we would like to think it can. The universe doesn't care if we say something doesn't exist just because it transported into another dimensional frequency. Or when something arrives into our dimension from another dimension for a few seconds....we say it couldn't be real....because we can't explain where it came from..

Just because we can't explain it.....doesn't make it unreal.
And just because we think we can explain it....doesn't make it any more real than what we can't explain and consider unreal.

Well, nobody decides what is real and what isn't real, but there are efforts to figure out what is in the category of real, and what is not in that category. What is is also what we want to label as real.

Well, if the universe cannot be divided into dichotomies, then what can it be divided up into? If there are categories, then why is it invalid to say X is not in Y category, thus making dichotomies all over again? If there are no categories, then what is the point of language? How can language exist vs non-language? An anti-category world defies the conceptions of most people to the extent that it can be dismissed outright, because it is directly apparent that there are categories, and this very discussion presupposes the existence of categories.

The universe doesn't care what we say, but we want to have a methodology so that way we don't misinterpret what the universe has. We say that the examples are unlikely to be real because we lose less by claiming they are unreal than we do if we claim that they are real. I mean, which has more entities: you have mistaken perception, another object from another universe blips in and out of existence? The former, and they both explain the same facts equally well, and the former might even match research about who sees "universe aberrations" more often.

No, a lack of explanation does not undermine the existence of something, but if we can explain everything without something, then adding this additional category might just be confusing, unless it adds to our understanding, such as with emergent properties. As well, a lack of explanation does say something problematic, it says that our current methods of knowledge are wrong, but if they are wrong, this leads to a large set of problems in trying to rework them, so if something would be inexplicable, it seems more rational to say it didn't happen if our evidence for it happening is weak.



alba
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 756

12 Apr 2009, 7:26 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, nobody decides what is real and what isn't real, but there are efforts to figure out what is in the category of real, and what is not in that category. What is is also what we want to label as real.

Dichotomies are opposites. Such as real/unreal.....life/nonlife. What is--is--regardless of our thoughts or categories. And the temporary categories should be flexible so they can be adjusted as needed. The things we take for granted can never be etched in stone [no matter how much we want them to be]....

Quote:
Well, if the universe cannot be divided into dichotomies, then what can it be divided up into?

If we are to be rational and learn from the past....categories change as science changes...so categories at best are reflections of but a temporary understanding. They do need frequent updating. Otherwise they get stale and aren't useful for contemporary purposes. I believe much of what we have separated up into rigid categories would be more usefully configured along a spectrum or continuum. Or perhaps seen in terms of probabilities as opposed to either/or classifications.

Quote:
If there are categories, then why is it invalid to say X is not in Y category, thus making dichotomies all over again? If there are no categories, then what is the point of language? How can language exist vs non-language? An anti-category world defies the conceptions of most people to the extent that it can be dismissed outright, because it is directly apparent that there are categories, and this very discussion presupposes the existence of categories.

I only know English language, but it seems likely they all suck. In my pov, we need to question the assumptions implicit in the structure of our language, as well as in the current state of our science.

Quote:
The universe doesn't care what we say, but we want to have a methodology so that way we don't misinterpret what the universe has. We say that the examples are unlikely to be real because we lose less by claiming they are unreal than we do if we claim that they are real.

There is never a guarantee or insurance or security....that our methodology is not misinterpreting. To assume our methodology is error-free, is an error. There is nothing to gain through believing we have all the answers or most of them or even half of them.....when history has shown that we can and are and have been wrong about a multitude of issues. I think it is wise to have several methodologies with the purpose of achieving independent confirmation across methodological lines.

Quote:
I mean, which has more entities: you have mistaken perception, another object from another universe blips in and out of existence? The former, and they both explain the same facts equally well, and the former might even match research about who sees "universe aberrations" more often.

We may not have access to the totality of the research and the implemented technology. Lacking significant facts puts us at a disadvantage. We form theories and conclusions based on limited databanks.

Quote:
No, a lack of explanation does not undermine the existence of something, but if we can explain everything without something...

We can never explain everything about anything. To assume we can, is being irrational. At best, we make educated guess.

Quote:
...then adding this additional category might just be confusing, unless it adds to our understanding, such as with emergent properties. As well, a lack of explanation does say something problematic, it says that our current methods of knowledge are wrong, but if they are wrong, this leads to a large set of problems in trying to rework them, so if something would be inexplicable, it seems more rational to say it didn't happen if our evidence for it happening is weak.

It seems to depend upon how much we question what we think we already know and how evidence is derived. It also considerably depends on how much of the scientific and technological facts are undisclosed for purposes of national security or whatever.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2009, 8:00 pm

alba wrote:
Dichotomies are opposites. Such as real/unreal.....life/nonlife. What is--is--regardless of our thoughts or categories. And the temporary categories should be flexible so they can be adjusted as needed. The things we take for granted can never be etched in stone [no matter how much we want them to be]....

I know about dichotomies, however, categories do not change reality, they describe it, based upon current needs for description. And you cannot describe reality without categories, so trying to move to a post-category state seems meaningless, as how would you convey things without categories. As for temporary categories? Well, I don't think we have any evidence that suggests anything wrong with our categories.

Quote:
If we are to be rational and learn from the past....categories change as science changes...so categories at best are reflections of but a temporary understanding. They do need frequent updating. Otherwise they get stale and aren't useful for contemporary purposes. I believe much of what we have separated up into rigid categories would be more usefully configured along a spectrum or continuum. Or perhaps seen in terms of probabilities as opposed to either/or classifications.

Ok, updating does not disprove all categories, or the existence of dichotomies. In any case, spectrums and continuums are usually between 2 extremes that are against each other, so they do not seem to disprove the utility of the dichotomy. Probabilities are also analytic, and are not opposed to truth or false claims, even if as a matter of communication and pragmatics. So, I do not see how your claims suggest anything, as you have not presented a case that our ways of viewing the world are wrong, as we cannot assign probabilities to all things, as the information is insufficient, even if the probabilities are still there.

Quote:
I only know English language, but it seems likely they all suck. In my pov, we need to question the assumptions implicit in the structure of our language, as well as in the current state of our science.

Ok, but what is the point of these questions? Why not question the assumptions implicit in your arguments and your thoughts? Your point of view seems to lead nowhere, so what is the point of no program? I mean, I can understand if a reasonable epistemic problem of knowledge exists, such as on moral claims, theological claims, just matters of the level of certitude, etc. But these are basic categories that we base our worlds around, and you have no alternative, so why not just keep them?

Quote:
There is never a guarantee or insurance or security....that our methodology is not misinterpreting. To assume our methodology is error-free, is an error. There is nothing to gain through believing we have all the answers or most of them or even half of them.....when history has shown that we can and are and have been wrong about a multitude of issues. I think it is wise to have several methodologies with the purpose of achieving independent confirmation across methodological lines.

Nobody has guarantees and nobody is arguing for a guarantee, but a methodology is important. There is a lot to gain for thinking we are right, even if we are wrong. There is also a lot about not just throwing out the baby with the bathwater just with the possibility of being wrong. In any case, what are these methodologies? Why should these methodologies be accepted? How do these methodologies really alter the nature of the debate? After all, Anselm's ontological argument was rebutted with the lack of a perfect island, so doesn't the combination already exist to some extent?

Quote:
We may not have access to the totality of the research and the implemented technology. Lacking significant facts puts us at a disadvantage. We form theories and conclusions based on limited databanks.

No, but a totality does not mean that reductionism based upon our current knowledge is wrong. It means that updating of beliefs should occur as information is gained. Nobody has a problem with the latter, but limitedness does not mean that all people must respect arbitrary beliefs, or consider arbitrary beliefs justified.

Quote:
We can never explain everything about anything. To assume we can, is being irrational. At best, we make educated guess.

Everything we see as needing explanation at a given point at time then. Your rebuttal still does not undermine my point that a reduction of entities is not invalid.

Quote:
It seems to depend upon how much we question what we think we already know and how evidence is derived. It also considerably depends on how much of the scientific and technological facts are undisclosed for purposes of national security or whatever.

Well, no, it has no relationship to this. Even if you think that our current epistemic state is weak, that does not mean that weak phenomena that we know through the current epistemic state are extremely justified to believe as far as I can tell. I mean, sure, you can personally uphold the idea, but the rest of us will consider it nonsense. Not only that, but valid evidence that the current methodology and assumptions are problematic seems weak, as you are arguing that "X is possible, ergo Y shouldn't be accepted", but all things are possible, but we have to accept something.

In any case, I do not see much you have promoted much beyond postmodern nihilism. I mean, you have some pragmatist stances, but I would think that pragmatism would promote the current epistemic scheme as a structure more so than it would promote scrapping the entire project.



alba
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 756

12 Apr 2009, 10:25 pm

AG,
Distinctions made on the basis of assigning a real stamp or an unreal stamp are irrelevant, as they may pertain to belief in god. All of quantum theory is validated initially through mathematics. Mathematics is the core basis of the methodology.

Is an operating system or a software program real? Is it less real than the hardware it works in conjunction with to enable a computer to run?

Equations may have a complex frequency pattern. From my pov, that frequency pattern is the very basis of what we call reality. And the frequency or sound is more basic than the computer language from which a software program is written. That frequency is like a hum. And everything that exists carries it's own individual frequency as well as the frequency of god, the entirety.

Now if one wants to say the pattern itself isn't real.....that is neither here nor there. A pattern or equation that underlies all phenomena in the universe, to me, is god.

If god is a complex series of radio frequency signals, superimposed upon each other....would that not be real? If there is an actual sound to god....like AUM...is that not real? The bottom line is--it doesn't matter what label we give it.

If everything would collapse without "it" then maybe "it" is god.