Ron Singh

Dear Neo,

Faith is to bond, and that which bonds best with God, experiences God best after death. Because if God were to be a rod in the sky, we would not truly be able to love God, and our relationship with him would be more akin to that of a businessman (as Albert puts it).

zpriesko

Wow Goliath, ever heard of constructive criticism? Virus asked for someone to point out possible problems with his argument, not lambast him for using some mathmatical properties incorectly and act like they are the God of Math.

I have also played with the idea of the universe as God, but the definition of God in this sense is so drastically different from my societies standard definition that I have always found this idea difficult to discuss with people. I also think it is important to remember that conjecture of this nature has no evidence behind it and is pure philosophizing. That being said I still love to contemplate the nature and meaning of our existence and I personally find the idea of the universe as an organism of which we all make up a small part to be very interesting. What if little cells in my body are self aware in the same respect as I am to the rest of the universe? And who knows, maybe the same applies to our universe and some greater bit of existence that we don't even have the ability to perceive.

Anyway, just wanted to give my 2 cents and knock Goliath a little bit for not being more tactful.

NeoDeltaI

Perhaps it is indeed trivial, but I challenge anyone to come forward with a definitive fact that God exists (or doesn't exist).

Personally, I feel that attempting to present a well-defined idea of God and say that it’s the only way God can be is silly and trivial, not providing one example of how God might be.

My theory was simply an attempt to show that a silent God could indeed exist, not to provide a totally viable idea of whatever created us. Am I correct to assume that you are suggesting that unless someone has definitive proof of God, they shouldn't make any attempt to introduce a theory about God? This, to me, undermines what this forum is all about.

I believe I've already said this, but I'll say again that I realize this theory has no facts to back it up, but I present it in an attempt to learn more from other freethinkers. So, in the interest of learning more, could you explain exactly what you mean by “poorly-defined”? I ask not to challenge your opinion, or say that my theory is air-tight (its not, by any means), only to find out what specifically eliminates this theory from being at least a possibility.

Jobar

Originally posted by zpriesko:
Wow Goliath, ever heard of constructive criticism? Virus asked for someone to point out possible problems with his argument, not lambast him for using some mathmatical properties incorectly and act like they are the God of Math.

Hello zpriesko; welcome to II. Stick around long enough and we may make you a moderator.

Taking up for Goliath though, Virus' attempt to express his philosophical point mathematically *was* pretty clumsy. And I think the way that he re-stated his ideas due to Goliath's criticism is far more intelligible, and much less clumsy; so Goliath's criticisms were useful to Virus. Having our ideas opposed helps us sharpen them.

I have also played with the idea of the universe as God, but the definition of God in this sense is so drastically different from my societies standard definition that I have always found this idea difficult to discuss with people.

Ain't it the truth!

Philosoft

Let's start with a coherent definition of 'God.' Preferably, one that describes a thinkable proposition.

<strong> You are re-defining the attributes of an undefined entity in response to brute facts of existence. I fail to see how ad hoc reasoning will get us anywhere.

<strong> We can invent zillions of explanations for 'divine silence' if we start with the brute fact that lack of evidence for God is indistinguishable from 'divine silence' and build our hypotheses therefrom (is that a word?) with no naturalistic constraints. Why should we consider yours in particular?

<strong> I'm saying that once you introduce the supernatural, all bets are off. Unless you can provide a valid and reliable method of determining the accuracy of a particular supernatural explanation, Lokis and Zeuses and Krishnas and IPUs are as good as Gods.

<strong> Certainly. I maintain that the word "God" is devoid of meaning. I can form no coherent concept in my head of the thing alleged to be represented by the letters G-o-d. Further, I believe some people may have a mental picture of something represented by the word "God" but that the thing they are picturing, in every single case, is not the actual thing that God would have to be in order to be God. In other words, we generally speak of "God" as if it were a robustly defined concept without giving thought to the alledged concept itself. We merely assume, because it's used so much, that the word "God" actually means something.

<strong> On the contrary, nothing eliminates your theory from possiblity. That's the very problem. It is trivially possible because the alleged concept of "God" is specifically designed to eliminate, or perhaps subsume, any empirical objections. If we cannot know anything about God, any hypothesis about his capabilities, motives, nature, etc. is as good as any other. (As an aside, this is of course why revelation is so critical to Christianity.)

Also, you needn't be tentative about challenging my opinions. I claim no intellectual superiority over anyone else. Indeed, this is philosophy, half the time I make it up as I go.

Goliath

VirusInTheSystem,

Apology accepted.

Please either prove that there exists a supernatural entity within mathematics, or retract your claim that such an entity exists.

....huh? How can a reaction be religious? How can a reaction have anything to do with any supernatural entity?

I don't doubt this for a second. It is usually wise to think carefully about one's posts before hitting the "Add Reply" button.

But you claimed to have a proof that the universe was "self-aware" (whatever that is supposed to mean regarding the universe, I have no idea). If you claim to have a proof of something, then said proof should be sound, otherwise the proof doesn't prove much, now does it?

I'm afraid your "proof" didn't show anything.

Excellent! I look forward to reading your revision.

I'm not a biologist, but perhaps you should restrict your definition of optical system to our eyes, optical nerves, and the parts of the brain that regulate and transmit visual signals.

Actually, our eyes--when combined with the optical nerves and parts of the brain--allow *us* to see things. If you take the eyes, optical nerves, and brain out of a cadaver, said parts won't be able to see anything.

Agreed.

Then you shouldn't say that our optical systems "are us."

Agreed.

...huh? What role would that be?

I've noticed that your thoughts seem to follow a pattern. You start with things that are easily agreed to (ie "We are a part of the universe," etc), and then move on to assertions that...well...are quite nonsensical (or at least undefined).

Unproven assertion.

And when did I make this claim?

Please don't put words in my mouth. Very bad form.

Purpose to whom?

Again, when did I claim that existence had no meaning?

Keep stuffing that straw man!

Ah, ok.

Again, I've never made the claim that humans have the most advanced perception possible.

However, given that humans do not have the most advanced perception possible, I still don't know what you mean by "primitive" perceptions. Where do you draw the line between "primitive" and "non-primitive?"

*nods* Noted. I just thought that you were trying to get at something other than out-of-thin-air speculations. Sorry.

Condescension unappreciated.

What if? I dunno....why should I care?

What if you're really a rutabega?

What if there is a slice of whole wheat toast inside of every black hole?

etc, etc....ad nauseum.

Fine. Leave the proving to mathematicians, then. Okay, little clubber?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

zpriesko,

Yes.

Which I did.

No, you don't understand. It's not as though he misquoted a theorem, or was off on a calculation by a minus sign, or anything like that. What bothered me about Virus' post is that he/she seems to think that mathematics is nothing more than making vague arguments using unclear terminology and extraneous use of symbols to "prove" things.

Virus, perhaps I was a bit harsh. For what it's worth, I apologize for any over the top remarks that I might have made. However, if you're going to stick to philosophy instead of mathematics, then please don't claim to "prove" the idea that the universe is self-aware (whatever that means), ok?

Please either point out where I attempted to impersonate a supernatural being, or take back your assertion that I did so.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(Edited to add a "please"--see what a nice guy I am? )

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

doubtingt

As theology goes, this notion is as plausible and as theologically sound (if not more so) than any else that hundreds of years of apologetics has produced. Of course that doesn't say much.

I use a form of the arguement to defeat
Pascal's wager (the notion that the costs of not believing in God if he exists are far more severe than the costs of believing in God, if he does not exist.) We have no basis at all to know whether God wants belief or not, even if he does exist. If he is a rational being, then he may punish believers, since belief is irrational, given the state of evidence. In sum, belief is just as likely as disbelief to lead to suffering in hell if God exists. Therefore, theistic belief based on an effort to reap rewards or avoid suffering is a irrational as any other basis for theism.

RogerLeeCooke

No need to assume that God is experimenting on us. The simple fact that incontrovertible proof of God's existence would essentially remove our freedom to obey or disobey is the more usual theistic response to this challenge. It's all right as a response, but it leaves unanswered the question: "Which, if any, of the human institutions claiming to speak for God, is the actual one anointed to do so?" Further, it is tantamount to admitting that the evidence for God's existence is of necessity not even preponderant, much less conclusive. And it gives a blank check to human decisions, since, if God seems unlikely (as it does to me), one can hardly be blamed for not obeying its commands (whatever they may be). I don't think the argument advances any particular organized religion much. For those who accept the answer as adequate (I don't) it, like the argument from design, provides a reason for deism, but gives no comfort to any of the world's great religions.

VirusInTheSystem

quote: Condescension unappreciated

ditto, Goliath. Don't judge unless you expect to be judged the same way in return.
---------------------------------------

quote:Taking up for Goliath though, Virus' attempt to express his philosophical point mathematically *was* pretty clumsy. And I think the way that he re-stated his ideas due to Goliath's criticism is far more intelligible, and much less clumsy; so Goliath's criticisms were useful to Virus. Having our ideas opposed helps us sharpen them.

true, Jobar. my original post, in retrospect, was almost beggin to be flamed. I only realized this because of Goliath's... well, flaming. So I changed it a little to make it somewhat less unstable. It wasn't Goliath's *criticism* that I didn't like. It was his *tone*. Although in a way, even his tone was helpful, because it will make me all the more careful when i make posts on this board from now on.

So thank you Gioliath for acting like an ass. I see that I have benefitted from it.

------------------------------------------

quote:For what it's worth, I apologize for any over the top remarks that I might have made.

apology accepted. don't worry about it

------------------------------------------

quote:However, if you're going to stick to philosophy instead of mathematics, then please don't claim to "prove" the idea that the universe is self-aware (whatever that means), ok?

i apologize for using the word "prove". from now on i will use words like "suggest"

----------------------------------------
quote:It is usually wise to think carefully about one's posts before hitting the "Add Reply" button.

point taken. its also wise to consider that one didn't follow one's own advice that he so generously shared with someone else Thanks for the advice though.
------------------------------------------
quote:Actually, our eyes--when combined with the optical nerves and parts of the brain--allow *us* to see things. If you take the eyes, optical nerves, and brain out of a cadaver, said parts won't be able to see anything.

If you take those parts out of a cadaver, they will also be dead. If the body dies, they also die, because they are *part* of the body. If the body dies, the optical nerves no longer carry signals. But if it were somehow possible to take the brain, optical nerves, and eyes out of a *living* person, in a way which kept the brain alive and the optical system intact... then theoretically, they *would* still be able to see.
-------------------------------------

quote:I've noticed that your thoughts seem to follow a pattern. You start with things that are easily agreed to (ie "We are a part of the universe," etc), and then move on to assertions that...well...are quite nonsensical (or at least undefined).

although the speculation that we play a certain role in the universe may be undefined, I don't think it is nonsensical. True, i have not *proven* it, but that doesn't make it nonsense.

quote:...huh? What role would that be?

well, for one, we grow massive amounts of plants and harvest them to be consumed or used in other ways. We therfore contribut to the cycle of platns "birth and death". Plants, in turn, serve a role of providing life for animals and humans. Although it can't be *proven* that this is their desgnaed purpose, or that they even *have* a purpose... for all practiacal purposes, that is what plants do--allow for animal and human life.

We also eat millions of animals that would otherwise reproduce, perhaps contributing to the over-population of certain species.

We do many things that could be seen as a "role" in the Universe.
------------------------------------

quote:

--------------------------------------------------
in response to:
we are definately a *part* of the universe in more than a purely physical sense.
--------------------------------------------------

Unproven assertion.


I do love how you selectively edit my original words to say what you want them to say (or how you would want them said to re-inforce your opinion of me). It makes you look almost vulverable... quite endearing actually

Although you left this out, my original words said: I *believe* we are definately a part of the...

Note: "believe" does not indicate an assertion that i claimed was proven.

You, however, seemed not to notice that.
----------------------------------------
quote: And when did I make this claim?
Please don't put words in my mouth. Very bad form.

then please do not take words *out* of my mouth. Also very bad form.
---------------------------------
quote:And when did I make this claim?
Please don't put words in my mouth. Very bad form.

in response to: If you think the universe has no structure, no purpose, no direction...

Note the word "if", which suggests that I do not claim to *know* what you believe. If I had said "*Since* you think the universe has no structure ect...", that would have been putting words in your mouth. I said "if". Do you grasp the implications of "if"?
----------------------------------
quote: Maybe I'm just fooling myself. Maybe the jokes on me... on all of us who think that existance has some sort of meaning.

Again, when did I claim that existence had no meaning?

Keep stuffing that straw man!


Again, when did I claim that you claimed existence had no meaning? Show me how I claimed that. Show me how i was even refering to *you* at all in this statement.

The only thing worse than a strawman is an imaginary strawman.
----------------------------------
quote:What if you're really a rutabega?
what if i am? are you saying that you would discredit anything i have to say on the grounds that I am a rutabega? are you implying that rutabegas do not have feelings and personal rights?
What if I *am* a rutabega. What are you trying to *say* Goliath? Just come out and say it! Quit hiding behind the facade of false civility and tolerance!

Sorry, just thought I would try reading between the lines, since you seem to enjoy it
---------------------------------
quote:Fine. Leave the proving to mathematicians, then. Okay, little clubber?

ok, i'll do that then. thanks, um, big clubber?

and how do you know I'm little? How do you, for that matter, know that I enjoy the nightlife and club scene (i do, but i never *said* that)

Sincerely,
Virus