Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Pachomius

You seem to think very highly of human psychology to declare we are sufficient for answering such a staggering riddle. In my experience humans derive great satisfaction from building puzzles no one can solve, and imagining fantastic solutions that can't be tested in a realistic study environment is part of the fun.

Our living senses and our consciousness are the only things we have by which to attain knowledge of reality.


That is the first concurrence we must all work for, otherwise we will not get any knowledge at all, but always remain in limbo.

Now for proof on evidence that our senses and our consciousness are ultimately reliable, just bang hard your nose against a concrete wall until it bleeds, and when you survive as to continue with life and sanity, you and I we can now work together as to concur on definitions of words, okay?




[For your orientation]

For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

a reply to: Pachomius


Like it or not. Earth could be an alien science fair project. And if extraterrestrials created earth and the life on earth, does that make them gods.

Or is there more to Being god than just creating something physical.

a reply to: pthena

Sounds like you were tapping into Akasha, The totality of all knowledge... how else would you know something existed in nature that you had never seen before? I get similar phenomenon in dreams. Where someone/something will tell me something that I don't know occurring in the dream, but, how could I not know something in my own dream? Unless I am interacting with other independent forms of sentience that are meeting me in my dream.

I would suppose God created this world much easier than we dream up worlds every night when we go to sleep. We create vast scenery and a multitude of people, all without conscious lucid input. Imagine a Being that did have control and knowledge of creating with their mind. Mind in the sense of pure consciousness, sometimes referred to as Logos (meaning Reason and Word) created all things. This notion resonates well with me because I see the intricate mathematical formulaic laws necessary for physics and biochemical system to perpetuate. All laws require something intelligent to implement them.

I also feel as though righteousness leads to Logos. As Logos is objectively true, therefore righteousness is the path towards it. I know I went on a tangent but it's good to be able to converse about this stuff

cheers.

originally posted by: Pachomius

Because there are things which have a beginning, like babies and roses and you with your nose on your face - and the universe, of course.

This all comes down to either intelligent design or not, and the big question is why do you need intelligent design in the first place outside of some human created abstract. As to a beginning or end "time", that is something that is a part of the fundamental structure of our universe, but it doesn't need to be outside of our universe. Think of a situation where time doesn't exist and infinite is a reality.

Those are concepts we humans have a very hard time with since they do not apply to our universe, but the old what came first the chicken or egg seems to pop up every time we talk intelligent design, as in who made god....so on and so forth...

originally posted by: cooperton

I would suppose God created this world much easier than we dream up worlds every night when we go to sleep. We create vast scenery and a multitude of people, all without conscious lucid input. Imagine a Being that did have control and knowledge of creating with their mind. Mind in the sense of pure consciousness, sometimes referred to as Logos (meaning Reason and Word) created all things. This notion resonates well with me because I see the intricate mathematical formulaic laws necessary for physics and biochemical system to perpetuate. All laws require something intelligent to implement them.

Maybe we already are Gods...

Humans spend much of their time in the abstract world where we create something in our brains and then we pull it basically out of thin air making it reality. Everything around you was once a human abstract, you didn't make breakfast without first abstractly creating it in your head, so does that make us Gods in our own way?

All laws require something intelligent to implement them.

What is a law, what is life? Both are human constructs to explain something. Life as we call it is a complex chemical process, so the term "life" is 100% human, not some fundamental universal thing. Same thing with laws...just something we humans created.

Still trying to define "God" in such a way that could lead to a productive debate?

Well, good luck. If the finest minds on Earth couldn't figure it out in several millennia, I doubt that it's going to happen in this dying thread.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you think humans created this puzzle?

The riddle of God is may be existential.

It has a lot of elements to it other than a belief in God.

The study of original, nontheistic Buddism, is a lesson I think that the human condition is wrapped up in any God philosophy.

The very nature of human beings as well and other things

But I do agree we won't settle this here and now. What will settle this?

Only

Time

WillTell

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Maybe we already are Gods...

Humans spend much of their time in the abstract world where we create something in our brains and then we pull it basically out of thin air making it reality. Everything around you was once a human abstract, you didn't make breakfast without first abstractly creating it in your head, so does that make us Gods in our own way?

I agree

If we are children of the Creator God, then just like any type of child, we eventually grow up to become like our parent. Our human bodies are the perfect vessel for a creator's Spirit to inhabit.

What is a law, what is life? Both are human constructs to explain something. Life as we call it is a complex chemical process, so the term "life" is 100% human, not some fundamental universal thing. Same thing with laws...just something we humans created.

But gravity and electromagnetism work regardless of whether or not we explained it yet.. Meaning they are more than just imaginary human constructs. The fact they are mathematically predictable and calculable indicates they are the contrivance of an Intelligent force.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Still trying to define "God" in such a way that could lead to a productive debate?

Well, good luck. If the finest minds on Earth couldn't figure it out in several millennia, I doubt that it's going to happen in this dying thread.

Don't sell yourself short. You are a rational Being capable of the same deductive reasoning as any other human in history... in my opinion, Plato nailed it perfectly describing God objectively and rationally. Jesus was the archetype/way for embodying the objectively Good God.

originally posted by: cooperton
But gravity and electromagnetism work regardless of whether or not we explained it yet.. Meaning they are more than just imaginary human constructs. The fact they are mathematically predictable and calculable indicates they are the contrivance of an Intelligent force.

I agree, but it is us humans that put a name to it all. What if there are infinite universes with infinite realities and infinite gravity and electromagnetism possibilities. I disagree with the whole "it is too complex to not be intelligent design" when in reality it needs to be something no matter what, so random chance would give something. Just like humans, we are very random chance if you look at all the things that happened to allow mammals to take over from dinosaurs as just one example of billions of random chances that needed to happen for us to be here today.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I agree, but it is us humans that put a name to it all.

youtu.be...

What if there are infinite universes with infinite realities and infinite gravity and electromagnetism possibilities. I disagree with the whole "it is too complex to not be intelligent design" when in reality it needs to be something no matter what, so random chance would give something.

Random chance would give gibberish. Even Brownian Motion, the law of random particle motion, acts according to certain predictability patterns. All our physical laws are so concise that they are the opposite of random, which is why I no longer consider random chance as being a possibility for the progenitor of life and physics.

Just like humans, we are very random chance

Random erratic behavior is a possibility within the framework of our nearly infinite imagination. 100,000,000,000 neurons with 1,000,000,000,000 supporting glial cells don't simply come together by random chance. The human being coming to be by random chance would be like a 1,000GB computer with robotic arms and legs that's able to reproduce itself, express emotions, and have rational thought coming to be by random chance. Obviously impossible. If evolutionary theory were not crammed into all of our heads from a young age, it would be the laughing stock of contemporary science.

The only debate we should be having is to who the creator is not whether or not there is one. Randomness is just not a possibility. a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: cooperton

Random chance would give gibberish. Even Brownian Motion, the law of random particle motion, acts according to certain predictability patterns. All our physical laws are so concise that they are the opposite of random, which is why I no longer consider random chance as being a possibility for the progenitor of life and physics.

When I say random chance I'm not saying completely random in everything as there are rules our universe runs on and the randomness within our universe work within those laws. Water turns to ice at 32 degrees...intelligent design? Why not 30 or 34? Our physical laws are concise for our universe, but that doesn't mean they are the same some place else that could have come out of infinite combinations of laws. We are here because of the nature of our physical laws, but we still have random directions. A planet size rock hitting the earth making the moon helped stabilize the environment, and that allowed advance life to grow over 100s of millions of years to what we see today may have been based on laws, but that rock was a random event, as was the rock that killed the dinosaurs allowing mammals to take over. If the moon never happened, or if that big rock didn't kill off the dinosaurs we would not be here. Now think about billions of other random acts that just happened to end in us.

Random erratic behavior is a possibility within the framework of our nearly infinite imagination. 100,000,000,000 neurons with 1,000,000,000,000 supporting glial cells don't simply come together by random chance. The human being coming to be by random chance would be like a 1,000GB computer with robotic arms and legs that's able to reproduce itself, express emotions, and have rational thought coming to be by random chance. Obviously impossible. If evolutionary theory were not crammed into all of our heads from a young age, it would be the laughing stock of contemporary science.

You think in the wrong direction. Take 100 million years of evolution and I say here is the baseline of life 100 million years ago and it will evolve in ANY random direction that the physics of the universe allow with uncountable random events/things happening along the way.

You run that program a zillion times and you will get a zillion different outcomes, we can say we are one of a zillion outcomes, but it could have been any one of the other zillion outcomes.

If we pilled up all the grains of sand in the universe and one of them represents humans and I said pick the one grain of sand that is human that would be basically impossible as your example suggests, but what happens if you reach down and randomly grab one grain of sand and it just happened to be human? Human was just a random pick, so not impossible since you would have picked something. Life is that, just random directions that end up somewhere, but that somewhere was not pre-picked.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

When I say random chance I'm not saying completely random in everything as there are rules our universe runs on and the randomness within our universe work within those laws. Water turns to ice at 32 degrees...intelligent design? Why not 30 or 34?

Water is a perfect example of our perfect habitation. Water condenses into clouds up in the atmosphere and rains down nourishment on the life below that requires it. It's so absolutely perfect, again I don't see how random chance could contrive something so ideal.

A planet size rock hitting the earth making the moon helped stabilize the environment

Planetary orbit has remain unchanged in the past known history. The same with the celestial sphere and all the stars in our sky. They have been perpetuating like clockwork for as long as we have been documenting them. This is textbook non-random.

that allowed advance life to grow over 100s of millions of years to what we see today may have been based on laws, but that rock was a random event, as was the rock that killed the dinosaurs allowing mammals to take over. If the moon never happened, or if that big rock didn't kill off the dinosaurs we would not be here. Now think about billions of other random acts that just happened to end in us.

These are a lot of assumptions. The world as we know it today, and for the past known history, is very non-random. It is very meticulous and patterned. Which is again why I don't believe these fables about our random chaotic past somehow generating a very precise goldi-locks habitation.

You think in the wrong direction. Take 100 million years of evolution and I say here is the baseline of life 100 million years ago and it will evolve in ANY random direction that the physics of the universe allow with uncountable random events/things happening along the way.

You run that program a zillion times and you will get a zillion different outcomes, we can say we are one of a zillion outcomes, but it could have been any one of the other zillion outcomes.

Instead of beating around the bush with probabilistic fantasy, we could conclude the far more likely scenario that intelligent creatures and the intelligent laws that uphold them came from an Intelligent source.

originally posted by: Pachomius
[quote starts]Because there are things which have a beginning, like babies and roses and you with your nose on your face - and the universe, of course.[quote ends]

Originally posted byXtrozero:

[ . . . ]
...what came first the chicken or egg...

Haha! Let me see who can think productively and who can't:

Give me the answer, which comes first, chicken or egg, or some innovative answer, okay?

Not wanted: rote memory regurgitations of nonsense, even from best selling regurgitators of rote memory learning.




[For your orientation]

For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God.

Addendum

I challenge anyone to demand of me that he wants me to work as to concur with him on a thought from his very own self invented or discovered idea, expressed in less than 50 words - and his invention or discovery must satisfy the criteria of honest intelligent productive standards.

originally posted by: ras321
The only debate we should be having is to who the creator is not whether or not there is one. Randomness is just not a possibility. a reply to: cooperton

The time you left your house today was that an act of God, or just random on your part? If you left 15 second later and died in car accident that you future kids never happened is at an act of God or a new random direction?

originally posted by: Pachomius

Haha! Let me see who can think productively and who can't:

Give me the answer, which comes first, chicken or egg, or some innovative answer, okay?

The only functional answer is that both were presented simultaneously. The framework of the life cycle of a chicken only works if the egg is also existent. Therefore, yet again, step-by-step random mutations as proposed by evolutionary theory could not have made it (because an egg is worthless without a chicken to turn into, and a chicken cannot come to be without an egg) . Instead, it must have been designed and implemented for both the chicken and the egg to be within its genetic code from the beginning.

This Coder of life must be God, the Intelligible Source of all.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The time you left your house today was that an act of God, or just random on your part? If you left 15 second later and died in car accident that you future kids never happened is at an act of God or a new random direction?

God knows what path I will choose, while also not deriding me of the freedom to make the decision on my own. God is knowledgeable of all things, including the necessity of making His children learn via the gift of free will.

The Op was asking whether or not god exists. As to your question, it is a better one then the OP. a reply to: Xtrozero

originally posted by: cooperton
Water is a perfect example of our perfect habitation. Water condenses into clouds up in the atmosphere and rains down nourishment on the life below that requires it. It's so absolutely perfect, again I don't see how random chance could contrive something so ideal.

Its not perfect or imperfect

Planetary orbit has remain unchanged in the past known history. The same with the celestial sphere and all the stars in our sky. They have been perpetuating like clockwork for as long as we have been documenting them. This is textbook non-random.

I'm missing your point or you missed mine. 5 billion years ago planets were just building in that they could have turned out differently in uncountable ways and life on earth would have been much different too and maybe no life at all like Venus. If we did not have our moon life on earth would not be so advance, as example.

These are a lot of assumptions. The world as we know it today, and for the past known history, is very non-random. It is very meticulous and patterned. Which is again why I don't believe these fables about our random chaotic past somehow generating a very precise goldi-locks habitation.

So we have 8 or 9 planets I would say there was a good chance at least one or two would be in the goldi-locks zone, wouldn't you say? Venus and Mars are also in this zone...

You keep looking from the present to the past and see one linear path and say it would be impossible to happen randomly knowing the end result, and I agree, BUT if you looked from the beginning and saw billions of possible paths forward with just one of them ending as we are today then it is probable no matter what since one of those path would have ended up here.

Instead of beating around the bush with probabilistic fantasy, we could conclude the far more likely scenario that intelligent creatures and the intelligent laws that uphold them came from an Intelligent source.

I would say even the thought of "intelligence" is only a human construct and lives within our abstract thoughts. We have slow and fast creatures too....laws are just laws...

Carnivores have a tendencies to develop more "intelligence" than grass eaters because it doesn't take much intelligence to eat grass and that intelligence cost energy, but carnivores need more based on their food source, while that food provides a lot more energy too to feed their brains.

It is said that evolution didn't take off very quickly until life reached the point of eating other life or being eaten. Once that was triggered it has been an arms race for billions of years with intelligence being one of the weapons.

Congrats to the guy who tells us God created a chicken with the egg already inside itself.


Now, let me see if anyone else can think as to satisfy the criteria of honest intelligent productive invention or discovery.


What are your definitions of randomness and of probability, in re the coming to existence of chicken and egg, as to avoid the appeal to yes, randomness and probability: so that they are agents of entities with beginning coming into existence from a prior status prior of yes nothingness, like the chicken with egg already inside itself.

If you can't understand me, then just tell me what is to you the most probable understanding you have for being a literate persona, okay?