Philosophy Discussion Forums

paradox wrote: ↑May 27th, 2022, 1:58 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 27th, 2022, 2:18 am

paradox wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 2:12 pm
The definition of God is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.

If God creates stone so heavy it can't lift it again this mean God would diminish his omnipotence because he would no longer be omnipotent because it would no longer be able to lift the stone.
But God is omnibenevolent therefore God is not willing to harm itself such as limiting his omnipotence.
Therefore God can create the stone but is not willing, but this doesn't mean he is unable.

Similarly, I can kill myself but I love myself therefore I won't kill myself.
this doesn't mean I can't kill myself, I can but I won't do it because I love myself.

Well that's one definition of gods. A particularly illogical one, but just one of many.

No, not gods but God because it's logically impossible that multiple gods of same definition exists.
for example if there are 2 omnipotent God's which on of them is superior and which inferior?
They can't logically be both superior because superior God implies one God that is superior to every being, where all other beings are inferior.
2 omnipotent Gods may seek to destroy each other, so which one wins if both are omnipotent? it's nonsense.

Thanks for providing even more examples of the illogic of such god definitions.

Otherwise I stand by my previous post.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe From Nothing? He provides the most credible hypothesis for the Big Bang, as far as I know.

You know too little obviously because Krauss fails to explicitly define "nothing", that is what he means by "nothing".
It is obvious that his "nothing" is based on virtual particles, which are by valid definition of "nothing" not nothing but rather a thing.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 12:44 am

paradox wrote: ↑May 27th, 2022, 1:58 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 27th, 2022, 2:18 am

paradox wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 2:12 pm
The definition of God is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.

If God creates stone so heavy it can't lift it again this mean God would diminish his omnipotence because he would no longer be omnipotent because it would no longer be able to lift the stone.
But God is omnibenevolent therefore God is not willing to harm itself such as limiting his omnipotence.
Therefore God can create the stone but is not willing, but this doesn't mean he is unable.

Similarly, I can kill myself but I love myself therefore I won't kill myself.
this doesn't mean I can't kill myself, I can but I won't do it because I love myself.

Well that's one definition of gods. A particularly illogical one, but just one of many.

No, not gods but God because it's logically impossible that multiple gods of same definition exists.
for example if there are 2 omnipotent God's which on of them is superior and which inferior?
They can't logically be both superior because superior God implies one God that is superior to every being, where all other beings are inferior.
2 omnipotent Gods may seek to destroy each other, so which one wins if both are omnipotent? it's nonsense.

Thanks for providing even more examples of the illogic of such god definitions.

Otherwise I stand by my previous post.

Sorry but you proved nothing here except your regret that definition can't be used for multiple gods.

paradox wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 6:17 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe From Nothing? He provides the most credible hypothesis for the Big Bang, as far as I know.

You know too little obviously because Krauss fails to explicitly define "nothing", that is what he means by "nothing".
It is obvious that his "nothing" is based on virtual particles, which are by valid definition of "nothing" not nothing but rather a thing.

No need to be snarky.

Krauss made clear all along that so-called "nothing" is actually something, being virtual particles popping in an out of existence.

This is clearly a far more credible idea than the idea that the universe was created by an anthropomorphic spirit postulated in ancient mythology.

I personally think there is more interesting going on than just virtual particles and, later, atoms and stuff just happening. Unfortunately, the notion of gods acts as a distraction. The question of the ultimate nature of reality is invariably framed as being either mystical or materialistic, as though there were no other options.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:57 pm Krauss made clear all along that so-called "nothing" is actually something, being virtual particles popping in an out of existence.

Did the very first virtual particles always exist with no beginning, or did they just pop into existence and they did not come from anything? Somehow these virtual particles would provide the DNA of life; then evolution could kick in. We are here today because some unknown particles popped in and out of existence.

This is clearly a far more credible idea than the idea that the universe was created by an anthropomorphic spirit postulated in ancient mythology.

You may think it is a more credible idea, but what are ideas, other than a figment of our imagination. We are here today because some first cause either had no beginning, or it did not come from anything. As the creation of the universe is history, there will be a truth. When science finds that truth, I believe it will point to God.

We have the freedom to believe as we choose, this should not lead to pistols at dawn.

Have a nice day everyone.

EricPH wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 2:08 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:57 pm Krauss made clear all along that so-called "nothing" is actually something, being virtual particles popping in an out of existence.

Did the very first virtual particles always exist with no beginning, or did they just pop into existence and they did not come from anything? Somehow these virtual particles would provide the DNA of life; then evolution could kick in. We are here today because some unknown particles popped in and out of existence.

This is clearly a far more credible idea than the idea that the universe was created by an anthropomorphic spirit postulated in ancient mythology.

You may think it is a more credible idea, but what are ideas, other than a figment of our imagination. We are here today because some first cause either had no beginning, or it did not come from anything. As the creation of the universe is history, there will be a truth. When science finds that truth, I believe it will point to God.

We have the freedom to believe as we choose, this should not lead to pistols at dawn.

Have a nice day everyone.

Why would God be based on an ape, Homo sapiens? Why would God be apelike? Did he evolve hands, forward facing eyes and wrinkled hands because his ancestors lived in the trees?

Only apes could believe so, and they do in their billions. Whatever gets you through the night ...

Whatever, I think the Abrahamic god idea distracts more realistic speculative inquiry by creating a false dichotomy - as though the only options were Guth's eternal inflation or a magic man of Middle Eastern Iron Age mythology.

What if something else entirely is happening? What if even more ancient people than in were correct and it's not God but the spirit of the land? Maybe there are extraordinary aspects of reality (to our perspective) in other dimensions? Maybe some kind of being evolved beyond its own universe?

Such ideas are not on the public's radar because the idea of a giant spirit of an ape man is so prevalent, despite its obvious absurdity.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:57 pm Krauss made clear all along that so-called "nothing" is actually something, being virtual particles popping in an out of existence.

There will be laws that govern the capability of these particles; of what they can and cannot do pre Big Bang. If they are responsible for the Big Bang, there will be more laws of what they can and cannot do post Big Bang. The temperature at the Big Bang could have been about 180 billion degrees Fahrenheit. Beyond any doubt, the material exploding from the BB would be absolutely sterile, no seeds of life could withstand that heat.

Miraculously, life happened. From single cell life some 3.8 billion years ago; we need to know how 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons evolved into the life we witness today. The skeletal system is just a bunch of levers linked together to create movement. We have the blueprint to show how the skeletal system works, but we are unable to build a mechanical replica of ourselves. Our skeletal system is more complex than rocket science.

Teams of the world's most intelligent engineers have so far failed to replicate our movements mechanically. Any improvement our engineers make will be as a result of intelligent design. Blind nature cannot do more than intelligent design. My money is on God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

EricPH wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 2:25 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:57 pm Krauss made clear all along that so-called "nothing" is actually something, being virtual particles popping in an out of existence.

There will be laws that govern the capability of these particles; of what they can and cannot do pre Big Bang. If they are responsible for the Big Bang, there will be more laws of what they can and cannot do post Big Bang. The temperature at the Big Bang could have been about 180 billion degrees Fahrenheit. Beyond any doubt, the material exploding from the BB would be absolutely sterile, no seeds of life could withstand that heat.

Miraculously, life happened. From single cell life some 3.8 billion years ago; we need to know how 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons evolved into the life we witness today. The skeletal system is just a bunch of levers linked together to create movement. We have the blueprint to show how the skeletal system works, but we are unable to build a mechanical replica of ourselves. Our skeletal system is more complex than rocket science.

Teams of the world's most intelligent engineers have so far failed to replicate our movements mechanically. Any improvement our engineers make will be as a result of intelligent design. Blind nature cannot do more than intelligent design. My money is on God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Uummm... I'm pretty sure the universe is about 6000 to 10,000 years old, what are you talking about?

EricPH wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 2:25 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:57 pm Krauss made clear all along that so-called "nothing" is actually something, being virtual particles popping in an out of existence.

There will be laws that govern the capability of these particles; of what they can and cannot do pre Big Bang. If they are responsible for the Big Bang, there will be more laws of what they can and cannot do post Big Bang. The temperature at the Big Bang could have been about 180 billion degrees Fahrenheit. Beyond any doubt, the material exploding from the BB would be absolutely sterile, no seeds of life could withstand that heat.

Miraculously, life happened. From single cell life some 3.8 billion years ago; we need to know how 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons evolved into the life we witness today. The skeletal system is just a bunch of levers linked together to create movement. We have the blueprint to show how the skeletal system works, but we are unable to build a mechanical replica of ourselves. Our skeletal system is more complex than rocket science.

Teams of the world's most intelligent engineers have so far failed to replicate our movements mechanically. Any improvement our engineers make will be as a result of intelligent design. Blind nature cannot do more than intelligent design. My money is on God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Intelligent design is just an upmarket term for creationism - a giant spirit ape man who created everything, dreamed up Middle Eastern Iron Age goat herders. It makes no sense to insert this mythical figure into the gaps of physics. I appreciate that belief in God is a natural extension of the survival instinct and posthumous survival is something people will naturally fight hard to maintain, but all evidence points to God being either an abstract comfort toy..

Life is miraculous in the sense that everything is nature is awesome and astonishing if you think about it enough, but there was no supernatural miracle, just nature as yet undiscovered.

It took almost 14 billion years for the superheated stuff of the early universe to reach the complexity of life on Earth. Theists often do not appreciate the power of deep time, or perhaps they don't want to think about it too much due to its implications. Consider how much has happened in just the last century. Now consider how much has changed in the last 200 years to the years 1820. Now consider what the world was like in 1720.

Do this ten thousand times. That will take you back one million years, a time when various hominid species competed. Now let's wind back another million years, the time of Homo habilis. They made very simple stone tools, not like the far more finely honed and engineered tools of later hominids. Three million years ago was the Pliocene epoch, a time of mastadons and other giant mammals.

That's three million years - 30,000 centuries. However, complex life is a billion years old. A thousand million. Because the words sound similar, if one does not think about it, the terms seem similar. Million, billion - whatever, right? Yet a million seconds equals 12 days. A billion seconds equals 31 years.

The amount that can happen - oh so slowly - over billions of years is humongous, resulting is such complexity that human inquiry (well, part of the universe's inquiry into itself) is still only scratching the surface.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 3:43 pm Uummm... I'm pretty sure the universe is about 6000 to 10,000 years old, what are you talking about?

Fair enough, if you see it that way.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 4:19 pm Intelligent design is just an upmarket term for creationism

Do you mean God?

It makes no sense to insert this mythical figure into the gaps of physics.

You have to look at your own bias too. You say nature did it, evolution did it, you are plugging the gaps when the evidence is lacking. Its a good job we can all think for ourselves.

It took almost 14 billion years for the superheated stuff of the early universe to reach the complexity of life on Earth.

Miraculously, life happened. From single cell life some 3.8 billion years ago; we need to know how 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons evolved into the life we witness today. The skeletal system is just a bunch of levers linked together to create movement. We have the blueprint to show how the skeletal system works, but we are unable to build a mechanical replica of ourselves. Our skeletal system is more complex than rocket science.

Teams of the world's most intelligent engineers have so far failed to replicate our movements mechanically. Any improvement our engineers make will be as a result of intelligent design. Blind nature cannot do more than intelligent design. My money is on God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Theists often do not appreciate the power of deep time,

Maybe atheists need to appreciate design

Consider how much has happened in just the last century. Now consider how much has changed in the last 200 years to the years 1820. Now consider what the world was like in 1720.

The majority of change happened mainly by intelligent design.

EricPH wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 8:57 am

It makes no sense to insert this mythical figure into the gaps of physics.

You have to look at your own bias too. You say nature did it, evolution did it, you are plugging the gaps when the evidence is lacking. Its a good job we can all think for ourselves.

No, this is far from the truth! My bias has always been strongly towards spirituality, which is exactly why I question it so hard. The answers I have received from believers in response to that questioning have always been disappointing.

I have challenged theists for years to say something, anything that might inspire, that might give hope that there really is more going on than superstition and hope. I have checked the views of numerous religious academics, figuring that perhaps the laity can't explain themselves so well.

There too, I see nothing but guesswork and bluster behind the veneer of arcane learning, motherhood statements, platitudes and obviously questionable claims that have obviously not been questioned, and obviously should have been.

All of the evidence points to God/Allah/Odin etc being completely subjective phenomena, at least within known dimensions. God has no real world physical existence.

That is why God is modelled on the morphology of great apes. God evolved forward-facing eyes, allowing his ancestors good stereoscopic vision for their life in the trees, and God has hands that are adapted to gripping branches. God is only lightly haired so that sweat will cool Him off when He runs down prey over long distances, being a persistence hunter. It's absurd.

Consider NDEs, and how everyone sees the deity of their culture. If that's not a clear pointer to God's subjectivity, I don't know what is!

Consider all evidence found so far that has been explained by natural means. In history, again and again, phenomena claimed to be the work of God/Jesus/Satan/demon/angel has been explained by natural causes, without need for the added mythology.

Do you really care about the Big Bang? Have you studied the theories and ideas around it? If not, you can't validly raise it as a "God dunnit" phenomenon.

EricPH wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 8:57 am

Theists often do not appreciate the power of deep time,

Maybe atheists need to appreciate design

I was designed annual reports using for a couple of years, using Adobe InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator, as well as Xara vector imaging software. I also spent many decades playing music, a decade cartooning, dabbled for years in digital art, so I very much appreciate design and what it entails.

I also appreciate what can happen over very long time periods. It's not "God dunnit" (aka intelligent design), it's natural selection. Theists often mistakenly assume that natural selection is random, but it is not, only individual mutations.

From the Big Bang onwards, it has been a game of "survival of the persistent", which for life is "survival of the fittest". Everything we see today is that which persists. The old, the ephemeral and the fragile are gone. The configurations we see are the stable ones. Many other configurations have come and gone, so we don't see them. There is no need for an anthropomorphic creator. Nature does it itself. Given all that nature can do, it's surprising that people don't worship nature. God is based on nature - freely giving and taking in mysterious ways, uplifting one day and smiting the next.

Hello Sy, if and only if there is a God, it seems he has given us a certain amount of freedom to believe and to do as we choose. Even if we choose to believe in God, it seems he has given us a vast variety of religions and seemingly diverse ways to seek him. I sense every religion holds a piece of the jigsaw, that helps us to understand who God is; no religion is complete on its own.

If and only if there is a God, then we are all created by the same God and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other despite all our differences. We will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

EricPH wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 6:35 pm Hello Sy, if and only if there is a God, it seems he has given us a certain amount of freedom to believe and to do as we choose. Even if we choose to believe in God, it seems he has given us a vast variety of religions and seemingly diverse ways to seek him. I sense every religion holds a piece of the jigsaw, that helps us to understand who God is; no religion is complete on its own.

If and only if there is a God, then we are all created by the same God and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other despite all our differences. We will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

Or:

If there is no God, it seems we have a certain amount of freedom to believe and to do as we choose. Even if we choose to believe in God, the kind of deity depends on the religion and the diverse myths devised. Every religion has its own different view of reality, which often shape cultures in their own image, regardless of what the non-religious may prefer, although this is slowly changing.

If there is no God, then we are all created by evolution and natural forces, and no deity exists to hear prayers, but they can instead provide useful placebo, cathartic and comforting effects. We have a duty to care for all of the Earth's life, and means caring for other hominids, despite their differences. We will never look into the eyes of anyone who is not a part of this amazing planet Earth and the system formed by our extraordinary star (which has turned out to be not as typical as was once assumed).

EricPH wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 8:43 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 3:43 pm Uummm... I'm pretty sure the universe is about 6000 to 10,000 years old, what are you talking about?

Fair enough, if you see it that way.

That's what the Bible says. Just trying to help you out here.

Nah…A perfect God is a possibility.

All anyone has is a hope that there is or isn’t a perfect God.