yea i always love when ppl say "he did this and he said that" lol this has got to be one of the most interesting build threads ive been on in a wlong while.. keep em comin...
keep 120 ray gun powder inside the canister
seriously..i can still see why people would think something not explained by science (alien race or something) could explain creation...but the concept of god? really? still?
God as an explanation offends you? Honestly, aliens aren't useful because that's merely taking the question of "How did life start?" to another planet.
Simply saying the universe emerged is not an explanation. Language, information/data cannot be explained with emergence, yet everything you see and understand is encoded with it. You require an immaterial, intelligent oracle that pre-dates space-time itself.
A God fits that remarkably well.
I think spiritualistic garb like Buddhism, native american religion, wicca/paganism and other forms of enlightenment through self or through our relatonships with nature are just remarkably obsolete.
In terms of atheism just not something I can take serious.
The cell is not seen as a blob anymore, the data contained within a single human cell put on a beta disc would be the size of the fucking moon.
At some point we have to acknowledge emergence is useless as a theory.
I think we're at that point now. Until Atheism offers me something better than "You're just here" or abiogenesis which no practicing biologist takes seriously, I really have no interest.
As for people projecting God through self, spare me......
Saying "You only believe in God as a way of comforting yourself", is like saying "You only believe in a lack of a God as a way of comforting yourself"
Neither is a reasonable thing to say, as you have no fucking clue whether that's the case.
You're talking out your ass when you presume to know and think what other people do.
Suppose you said "People who say they believe in giant squids only say that because it makes them feel like there's something interesting." and then one day, you're in the water and one pulls you under and drags you down about a thousand feet in say 12 seconds...
Now, do you think telling yourself it's just projection will help you when your inards are crushed and your eye balls start to pop out of your head??
I imagine probably not.
The existence of God doesn't hinge on whether people find comfort in him or whether you dislike the concept.
It either exists or it doesn't. Human projection has no power at all. Most people don't believe in God as something that's just a lovely feeling they get or something wonderful to imagine.
Last edited by Rollo; 04-01-2010 at 10:18 AM.
on the wave of human development, we are in the bottom of the trough, atheism is proof of that.
Your logic is everything complex needs to come from something, except God because he's just God. Why doesn't God need a cause? Why is he exempt? There's no reason why the universe without a God can't emerge in the same way you assert God emerged. In fact, 'natural' emergence obeys the laws of complexity better than a God theory. That something as complex as a conscious, omnipotent, and strangely humanly moral being was here before the disordered cosmos, which than arranged into somewhat more complexity and yielded our consciousness, is less elegant than simple emergence.
Suspiciously humanlike complexity>Simplicity>Complexity
Also, all the 'proofs' you have, (essentially the old argument of irreducible complexity) comes from knowledge using a system of knowing that doesn't require a monolithic faith, but rather knowledge based on evidence. For you to come into the chain of knowledge and assert god, even when the science is still working on these problems (and will always have to work with unknowns) is just stealing the victory. Also, there are plenty of scientists who maintain abiogenesis is possible and there are definitely one's that don't, I don't know how you can maintain this. The point is we don't know, but you would rather just say 'divine intelligence' and end the investigation altogether. That epistemology SHOULD be outdated.
I'm not saying its entirely impossible that there is something like an inter-penetrating consciousness matrix, or a fundamental mindedness to reality and matter. Its simply that any religious system proclaiming both to assert this with certainty or to know it in a way that feels it can judge you, is presuming FAR too much.
And history will give you evidence of the emergence and uses of religion. Wherever you see the need to control people, you will see doctrinal religion. Wherever you see a lack of hope and subjugation there arises the 'otherworldy' religions of heaven and hell. Wherever you see a lack of explanation you will see god's work. When a person of faith has been convinced of the absurdity of faith one of last defence's is always they 'need it because it comforts them'. In times of crisis and stress people turn to god and prayer.
'God' is a master signifier and an absolute, 'he' very conveniently fills in and adds structure to our symbolic framework (which we need to stay sane). I'm not saying this is a case for all people at all times but its a far more likely explanation than the alternative, and isn't curious how everyone's use and conception of god is just slightly unique to them?
And no, not having absolute belief (which is different than believing in a lack of god) isn't comforting, I know I'll live and die in some state relative confusion and ignorance, but such is the nature of knowledge.
Robespierre burning atheism and fanatism and uncovering Truth.
clan destine. you made some good points but you failed to illustrate the superiority of your model outside of personal preference.
1. God did not emerge. God is and always has been.
2. the big bang from nothing theory, to quote mckenna, "is the mother of all improbabilities."
if you are going to assert this claim, then NOTHING can be ruled out. why? because the singularity defies all known laws, theories, behaviors and concepts of our universe.
so once we enter into the realm of the divine, all bets are off cause the basis of the atheistic model of the universe hinges on the most improbable, unlikely an arguably absurd notion that everything around us poof'd here out of nothing.
then you went off on a religious tangent which is not what the build is about. i think everyone can agree that religion is out of touch, to put it nicely.
God is eternal, it has to be that way.
information existed before the bang and that information will exist after the universe wimpers out or crunches or whatever happens.
we can call that information "thought".
but like i said, if we are to say that the pre-bang singularity existed, then anything is possible.
i agree with the physics of the big bang BTW.
but its silly to claim "energy can't be created or destroyed....uh ...well.... except when it was 1st created and when it's destroyed at the end of time."
i don't want to believe there is a God. I KNOW God is real.
YOU CANNOT have an intelligible codex without a sentient being to put it in place.
I just had one argument about quantum mechanics in this thread, and how space-time is encompassed by a timeless fourth dimension, do I really need to have another?Why doesn't God need a cause?
We already went over this. God as God is defined is beyond time itself. He existed before existence as we understand it existed.
I've already had this argument...
1. God is(by definition) omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
If your argument doesn't already acknowledge that, then you aren't debating God. That's what God is, even if ficticious. Anything else is just a strawman you've made up.
If that's a problem, my reply is go beyond 19th century philosophy because this "what was before God" garbage doesn't sit with modern physics.
We know time had a starting point. God is prior to that, therefor not subject to the fabric of space-time or to natural order.
Again, rationalistic philosophy is USELESS. It has failed as a school of thought.
If that's what you major in, kill yourself.
You might as well major in leprauchaun husbandry
Why is he exempt? There's no reason why the universe without a God can't emerge in the same way you assert God emerged.
The primeval atom was like any piece of matter, quanta-sized components and already encoded by the same very laws it has now as our universe. In fact, it was our universe before it expanded and cooled, all you've done is made it smaller, that still doesn't help you.
God is unlike it in that he is not material and not bound by the principles of physics that bound that atom to begin with.
So sorry, but your argument is deeply flawed.
That comparison is ignorant.
In fact, before I go any further, name me a language, the emerged with no intelligible entity to put it in place...
GO ahead, I'll wait.
The quantum is the most complex of all matrixes and yet you don't think it requires an intelligible source, that's exceptionism at it's worst.
Nobody has ever seen an atom just emerge........ Never.... There is not one shred of evidence that this could happen.
Emergence is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual materialist way of ducking an obvious problem that mathematicians have been mocking for decades. Information does not emerge and there is nothing supporting the notion that it can.In fact, 'natural' emergence obeys the laws of complexity better than a God theory.
And at least with a God rather than an atom exploding which depends on finite reactions via nuclear fission caused by hydrogen, he isn't bound by engineering principles or probability.
Further the primeval atom couldn't have self emerged because atoms themselves have no way of self organizing.
Unless you're going to suggest an eternal atom (which we know are universe is not eternal it has a finite age) there really is no argument to be made for the emergence of our universe.
That something as complex as a conscious, omnipotent, and strangely humanly moral being was here before the disordered cosmos'
There is no disordered cosmos. If you think that you must have a bad understanding of special relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, information theory and statistics.
Probabilities cause influxes and even chaos in the human eye, but all of it is predictable.
All of it falls humble to quantum mechanics and relativity.... I'm sorry but much like the cell that was a blob, the universe that lacked uniformity and order is a thing of 19th century thinking.
Your argument is old.
, which than arranged into somewhat more complexity and yielded our consciousness, is less elegant than simple emergence.
Suspiciously humanlike complexity>Simplicity>Complexity
What kind of equation is that supposed to be?
The Primeval atom was our entire universe compressed into something that made a grain of sand look gigantic. How is that simple ?
I'm sorry but so what if something was similar to humanity's understanding of complexity? We are sentient beings who have language and especially important mathematics. Wouldn't we expect other beings who operate through similar means to be similar to us to begin with?
In fact, given that description isn't it kind of dumb on your part to say "Similar things operate in similar ways but cannot themselves be similar" ?
Last edited by Rollo; 04-01-2010 at 09:19 PM.
Also Existence as such, god or godless, is both a testament to 'the mother of all improbabilities' and also the only thing that can ever be, due to its nature. If there is a chance between existence and non-existence, there will always be existence, non-existence well, does not exist, its a false dichotomy. It isn't absurd that something came from nothing, because nothing is not anything that requires anything to super-cede it.
It would be more absurd to posit the opposite, that nothing can do anything or impede anything, that being is not just being forever. The problem I have is with giving existence a human-like face, a character. This is a species arrogance, or just simply a heuristic of understanding that shouldn't be taken seriously.
And just to clarify I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief that the Bing Bang Theory is the be all and end all of explanation. It is simply is as far as we can see, within a sensible framework of interpretation. Also, just because it appears orginary it doesn't mean it is, nor can it explain the rest of time, space, reality nor the future unfolding of existence. God is possible yet, it may be being born now.
Hey Rollo, just saw that you posted, I need to sleep but I'll look over what you said
Last edited by Clan Destine; 04-01-2010 at 01:28 PM.
clan, i may be wrong, but i think we just agreed, conceptually speaking.
i'm just saying that if we all agree that we are "living the dream" so to speak, then the absurdity of God's existence goes out the window.
i would add that the physical universe is an expression of an idea. information.
so yes, the universe is God, as much as these pixels you are reading are an expression of my thoughts, but the pixels are not literally my thoughts.
i just watched a good 30 min clip of a mckenna lecture that touches on much of this build. time, universe creation, biology, life, and much more. ironically he doesn't mention God.
i don't like the anthrophormophic god either.