Printable View
What's the difference between the 99 names of Allah and this...Quote:
Originally Posted by T4R1K
???Quote:
Allah is the concept of a conscious Universe as is Brahman.
Zeus is the concept of the power of the Heavens to make storms which affect life.
Horus is the concept of Avenging one's Father.
Nike is the concept of having victory.
Lady Liberty is the concept of freedom.
Chronos is time.
Odin is a god of Knowledge.
Quetzalcoatl or Aeolus is the winds.
HETEPU
so basically what somebody would call the universe or reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusk
no, what somebody would call lazy responsibility ditching...and fear of death/the unknown (not suggesting theyre the same)..no offense to anyone.
elaborate on that dusk.
no problem. the concept of god(s) came about because people couldnt understand the complexities of our planet...and could only define such complexities as being created by a higher power. i think that concept has evolved into more of a need people have to believe in something higher..moreover someWHERE higher. its easier to believe God has a plan than to accept that your own decisions shape the outcome of ur life.
and tho i said no offense, this did come across as condescending and bitter. refer to what i said after...much better answer,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusk
what im curious to know is how did even the thought that something HIGHER existed or could exist even be conceived... where did they get this idea of something Ethereal and Unseen being come from?? hmmm that dogma didnt just come from them thinking "hey you know what? somebody invisible in space MUST be responsible for all of this" how did these thoughts of SOMEONE creating us creep into the human conscience and psyche? im just pondering how primitive minds could think in such advanced ways to ponder their creation in such a way to attribute it to a PERSON or Higher Being rather... where did they get the notion that such things could exist and or be possible?
perhaps u should look at it this way...with all the resources available to humans at the time, things like construction...building...creating started to conceptualize..with that...perhaps..the notion that the same methods were taken to create the whole planet...and bam...there u go.
hmmmm, ok then why wouldnt they think someone physical PHYSICALLY created all they physically saw in such a physical world they lived in? what im trying to get at is how did the human mind start to create this perception of an unseen being, when all that was before them was real and tangible... to your point... if they had sex and procreated wouldn't that instill in them more the thought that the same process was used for THEIR very creation and birth? i think at such a primitive time it would be hard to have such deep thoughts of that nature, especially since there was no concept of anything as an unseen being...
this topic is def one to grow on
It isn't difficult to see how people can conceive of an 'unseen' being, many things occur that are unseen but have affect. The problem is why people would give it explanatory and agentive power in their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiGitalChamberz
I would just say that our closest experience of anything is ourselves. Our closest and surest experience of cause and effect is our will and the subsequent action. The first material for the conception of god is self.
Most indigenous cultures are animistic in this sense, everything in nature, a plant, a rock, a waterfall, has a will or a spirit. It is not difficult to see how deification is a most proximal mimicry. Its not hard to how these traditions morphed into different religions and systems.
Another explanation offered by some researchers is hallucinogens. The argument is that most of the worlds cults and religions arose from experience with powerful plant drugs. Any drug user can see how ingesting something can offer novel perceptions and conceptions.
"The first material for the conception of god is self."
yet we keep searching for things that do not exist
God has no beginning and no ending, He's out of these two concepts, He's absolute that's why He has no god nor siblings (no parents and no children (Jesus??? lol))Quote:
Originally Posted by V4D3R
Co-sign this, I've seen somewhere (if I find the source I'll post it) that statistics nowerdays shows that only 8% of the world population is pure atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by WUnded Fox
He gave you free will so you can make your own choices and assume themQuote:
Originally Posted by ikke
On the other hand, He told you what you have and not have to do (religions IMO) and the choice is yours again.
hahaha well like its been said... There is no Begging or End.. 360 degrees, so i think we only lose ourselves searching for something thats not there... maybe when we stop looking well find what were looking for.. maybe its closer than we think...
or maybe were so busy looking outward... that we never spend enough time looking within..
it would be interesting to find out if after all this time all we were looking for essentially was... ourselves...
he gave us free will because he doesnt exist...so we can do whatever we want anyway..eloels, that hadnt occured to you? we created god...for the same reason people probably think he created us...misery loves company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellspawn
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...
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.
on the wave of human development, we are in the bottom of the trough, atheism is proof of that.
So God makes more sense than emergence how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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.
Simplicity>Complexity
not
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.
well put^
its easier to put down atheism and agnosticism than it is to defend the concept of a god.
http://revolution.1789.free.fr/image/etre_supreme.gif
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.
whoa..so God always having been is probable????with no explanation but that he always has been? Style..seriously why do u personally want to believe there is a god?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusk
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."
infinity(energy+information)=God
i don't want to believe there is a God. I KNOW God is real.
No. The fact is, all language all information and all things intelligible require an intelligent priori oracle/source. This is not a rational/logic I made up. This is a fact in information theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clan Destine
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?Quote:
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
Quote:
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.Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
, which than arranged into somewhat more complexity and yielded our consciousness, is less elegant than simple emergence.
Simplicity>Complexity
not
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" ?
Firstly, I don't have a fixed model. Emergence is simply something I'm defending over a willful creator.Quote:
Originally Posted by WUnded Fox
Again, why does god gain the benefit of eternity but not the universe? And how can you assert the validity of this claim? Why posit a subject that requires a property of eternity? And not simply eternity itself? Why can't 'God' simply be the universe without 'God' in it? Which goes back to your original question of how one defines God.Quote:
Originally Posted by WUnded Fox
A God model assumes just as much as a singularity, with the extra dimension of human-like properties and the lack of empiricism. A singularity could have always been here. In essence it WAS everything before it expanded. It needn't obey the laws as we know it, because there aren't really laws, just regularities. We only conceive of 'obeying' laws as metaphor. It certainly could have been 'obeying laws' for what the laws were at its state, but as we are and observe its expansion we obey the laws of a different, differentiated, expanded stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by WUnded Fox
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.
Fair enough. I was repsonding to another post, but I agree with keeping within the spirit of the original intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by WUnded Fox
Hey Rollo, just saw that you posted, I need to sleep but I'll look over what you said
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.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...7212862409664#
i don't like the anthrophormophic god either.
...right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ikke
The only way this would work would be if "he" is the "us"...
hmmmm...
HETEPU
the he is us.
You have free will, but every choice that sits before you he already knows and since he is omniscient and omnipresent, he will always know what you are going to do.
You have the freedom to choose anything, however anything you choose he will have foreknowledge of.
Even when he doesn't know he knows...
As he exist in an infinite number of forms and everywhere through out eternity..
He is not a person... callybasi
he isnt a person..hes a 6 foot rabbit with pink overalls that hands out chocolates and hides rotten eggs.
As I told someone earlier in the thread, he is defined by certain characteristics that you don't get to change. Even if you think he is a myth, you have no continuity over the concept as it isn't your intellectual property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusk
What he can do, isn't up for debate. That's a part of what the character is.
If you aren't addressing an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God, you aren't addressing God at all.
All arguments must be made with these already accepted.
It's kind of like saying Wolverine doesn't have steel claws or that Barack Obama isn't mixed, it's not debatable.
im not debating what attributes he has, my argument is that he WAS GIVEN them..by us.
Doesn't matter if he was or not. My point was simply that he has them and free will with God is not a contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusk
I'm not jumping into a does God exist debate because in the end neither side would give up their biases.
Most atheists have a "I don't like to be told I'm wrong, if I say it is it is complex" same with most religious people.
am i really the only person that sees him arguing with himself?^^
I wasn't arguing with you, simply pointing out your prior post has nothing to do with what I said originally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusk
And I wasn't speaking to you when I made my statement about free will, it came up in a post from face of the golden falcon. You just assumed it was directed at you.
no not necessarily..it just seems at times that ur less concerned with the topic and more concerned with how people handle it.
I think objectivity is worth killing for.
If people are going to debate something and come to a conclusion, they should do it on certain terms.