Disprove god!

[Mechanicalsalvation]

and that should conclude the thread.

......amen

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I suppose so. But if this is not to be taken literally, why should any of it be? We can simply dismiss the story of Jesus as a fictional character who serves as a model for the ordinary Christian (or anyone, for that matter). If you would like to really dig deep with the metaphors, we can take God as not a real being but instead just a reminder to do the right thing. Such outlooks come back to bite the user in said way.

There is difference between taking something literally, symbolicaly or completely dismissing it.
Virtualy anything which concerns God or its aspects(such as creation) has to be symbolical(including the name) becouse human being doesnt have the sense(at first/by intelectual reason) to comprehend this God-reality and when it eventualy does comprehend God (through some form of spiritual/inner development - development of more subtle cognitive capacity then is mental reasoning) he is not in possition to share it with others except again only through symbols or methaphors.

 

[Leoreth]

Or maybe becouse there are infinite number of possibilities?...

How is the number of possibilities relevant? Fred doesn't know which of them will become reality, so it doesn't matter if there are two, infinitely many, or over 9000.

Why would any of this be thrue? I mean if Fred has power to start something why He wouldnt continue it? Who says thats Freds Creation is finished product? By what Force this Creation continues and sustains itself if Fred is the only Source of this Creation. It actualy implies the contrary.

Because that is not how Fred is defined. It's a hypothetical, and Fred is defined to prove a specific point. If he's different than that definition, then it's not Fred, but another concept of God.

By soul is meant something immortal. If Fred is immortal and only Reality and if the Creation is started by Fred. Then it must be part of that Fred-Reality and in some way it shares his immortality aspect.

I don't see why that follows. If Fred can create something, he can create it in any way he likes (we're in a hypothetical, remember), that includes beings without immortal souls. Again, that doesn't mean that there is no conceivable scenario in which immortal souls exist, just that it wouldn't be Fred if he had created beings with them, since that would destroy the argument the hypothetical is trying to make.

 

[gozpel]

God is energy, energy created the universe, the universe expanded to create us.

But God is in no way looking at us as it's children, it is just a merciless energy that devours the space and rebuilds it. If you were cooked when that happens, tough luck.

There is no HIM or HER, it's only IT.

When you die, where will your little duracell-power go? You do know that you're a walking energycell? How else would you be going on for all these years?

When you die, your dead body will release the energy within and it goes back to the infinite space, doing something else. No souls, sorry.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

gozepl, we humans can proudly say to have personalized impersonal issues for millenniums. And look where it got us - on the top of the food chain! You know what they say - never change a working system.

 

[gozpel]

gozepl, we humans can proudly say to have personalized impersonal issues for millenniums. And look where it got us - on the top of the food chain! You know what they say - never change a working system.

This implies with every organism in the universe, look where those little maggots 2 billion years ago took us. You are here and I'm here and those bugs/maggots are still here.

On the top of OUR foodchain, maybe.

We don't know the future, and we hardly know the past, so many guesses.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Because that is not how Fred is defined. It's a hypothetical, and Fred is defined to prove a specific point. If he's different than that definition, then it's not Fred, but another concept of God.

Oh yes, stupid me. I have red whole of the article now and its pretty interesting...

Especialy like this part:

Because there's no way for us to differentiate between a totally mechanistic universe and the one created by Fred, it means that we cannot actually prove that the universe is mechanistic. All we are left with is opinion and belief and probabilities.

Which is to say, faith.

I can only say that in this scenario Fred is "mechanistic God" so I dont see why the universe created by him would be any different...

God is energy, energy created the universe, the universe expanded to create us.
it is
But God is in no way looking at us as it's children, its just a merciless energy that devours the space and rebuilds it. If you were cooked when that happens, tough luck.

There is no HIM or HER, it's only IT.

If that was true how come humans can be merciful? It would be completely nonsensical that we evolve love or mercy - what for?. Yet we have these and put them quite high(if not considered essential) in our human life. What a paradox, right!?

When you die, where will your little duracell-power go? You do know that you're a walking energycell? How else would you be going on for all these years?

When you die, your dead body will release the energy within and it goes back to the infinite space, doing something else. No souls, sorry.

Again there would be no need for the function of mere walking energy cell to develop such a complex nervous system - pure vaste of time and evolution....

This implies with every organism in the universe, look where those little maggots 2 billion years ago took us. You are here and I'm here and those bugs/maggots are still here.

On the top of OUR foodchain, maybe.

We don't know the future, and we hardly know the past, so many guesses.

I dare to say that if it was really only up to these maggots neither you or I would be here...

 

[warpus]

If that was true how come humans can be merciful? It would be completely nonsensical that we evolve love or mercy - what for?.

You do know that we are a social species, like ants and wolves, right?

This is something that can easily be looked up - there are a bunch of scientific papers written on the subject... as well as I'd imagine more pop-sci type articles directed at the general masses.

Besides "what for?" is not a question you want to ask in terms of evolution. We don't evolve things because we need them, we evolve things due to environmental circumstances outside of our control. The better question to ask is "how?" and "why?"

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You do know that we are a social species, like ants and wolves, right?

Are the social life and organisation of it of wolves or ants based on love and mercy? Or whats your point?

Besides "what for?" is not a question you want to ask in terms of evolution. We don't evolve things because we need them, we evolve things due to environmental circumstances outside of our control. The better question to ask is "how?" and "why?"

You need both enviromental circumstances and some mouldable subject these forces can project their pressure into. So the question seems to me correct.

 

[warpus]

Are the social life and organisation of it of wolves or ants based on love and mercy? Or whats your point?

The point is that we evolved things like compassion partially due the nature of how our species operates - we live in packs and are very social creatures. More cohesive social groups have a much better chance of survival.

I'm sure this can be much better explained by someone who is versed in biology and/or human behaviour studies than me.

You need both enviromental circumstances and some mouldable subject these forces can project their pressure into. So the question seems to me correct.

But say.. the question: "Birds evolved the ability to fly - what for?" "So they can fly" is a fully incorrect way to look at evolution. Birds did not evolve the ability to fly with flight as some sort of a goal. They just sort of gradually evolved that ability, very slowly over time, with no goal in mind.

As such, you can't really try to think of a reason of why we would need compassion. Evolution doesn't work that way - we don't evolve things that we 'need'. Things just sort of happen slowly over time based on the environment and who is able to survive better based on their own set of particular genetic makeup.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The point is that we evolved things like compassion partially due the nature of how our species operates - we live in packs and are very social creatures. More cohesive social groups have a much better chance of survival.

But wolves or ants doesnt need compassion so why do we? From purely mechanical point of view things like love and mercy do not add anything to the function of specie - rather its a drag. What you are saying is that during the course of evolution we have witnessed how inconscious mater has evolved compassionate beings. What I am saying is that in purely mechanical universe there is absolutely no need, no impulse and no capacity for creating something higher than itself.

But say.. the question: "Birds evolved the ability to fly - what for?" "So they can fly" is a fully incorrect way to look at evolution. Birds did not evolve the ability to fly with flight as some sort of a goal. They just sort of gradually evolved that ability, very slowly over time, with no goal in mind.

I am pretty sure that birds didnt evolve ability to fly through their mind being set on such goal but I am up to see that there is some form of inteligence which works unseen behind the whole process of evolution for othervise from purely mechanical point of view just the fact of existence of matter and its subjugation to the mechanical laws is sufficient form of perfection to which any form of biological life doesnt add anything...

So the fact of existence of our compassion actually brings me to think that there must be some form of it unmanifested somewhere(in some universal Mind/Nature/God) of which our compassion is manifested reflection.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

But say.. the question: "Birds evolved the ability to fly - what for?" "So they can fly" is a fully incorrect way to look at evolution. Birds did not evolve the ability to fly with flight as some sort of a goal. They just sort of gradually evolved that ability, very slowly over time, with no goal in mind.

As such, you can't really try to think of a reason of why we would need compassion. Evolution doesn't work that way - we don't evolve things that we 'need'. Things just sort of happen slowly over time based on the environment and who is able to survive better based on their own set of particular genetic makeup.

Agreed. If you think that way, it is totally reasonable why we haven't grown wings.

 

[fishjie]

There is difference between taking something literally, symbolicaly or completely dismissing it.
Virtualy anything which concerns God or its aspects(such as creation) has to be symbolical(including the name) becouse human being doesnt have the sense(at first/by intelectual reason) to comprehend this God-reality and when it eventualy does comprehend God (through some form of spiritual/inner development - development of more subtle cognitive capacity then is mental reasoning) he is not in possition to share it with others except again only through symbols or methaphors.

the good old god's ways are way above our own.

and yet the christian religion presumes to tell us everything there is to know about this god, including his gender, his plan for us, and that their religion is the one true way. you can't have it both ways.

religion says gods ways are above our own, and yet says, but hey we are the one true religion (how would they know if god is beyond their understanding???), give us money!

fact of the matter is if you want to say all the errors and contradictions in the bible are a metaphor, then you are saying there is no absolute truths. gods ways are far above your own, you couldn't possibly know that christianity is the right religion, because you are like a bacteria to gods infinite power. you have no way of validating any of it.

whereas me i take the simpler approach. bible is a metaphor? sure, its a work of fiction. god is imaginary. the end.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Quite so. Lets just take the first paragraph:

Ok, lets.

Or maybe becouse there are infinite number of possibilities?...

Why would any of this be true? I mean if Fred has power to start something why He wouldnt continue it? Who says thats Freds Creation is finished product? By what Force this Creation continues and sustains itself if Fred is the only Source of this Creation. It actualy implies the contrary.

By soul is meant something immortal. If Fred is immortal and only Reality and if the Creation is started by Fred. Then it must be part of that Fred-Reality and in some way it shares his immortality aspect.

See G, what you did here was provide alternatives. You have not dis-proven a single iota. You point to other possibilities, you question claims that are unmotivated, point at implications. And to close it off you try to disprove it by making an un-falsifiable counter claim.

All you did was tell us why you think Fred's Universe is improbable in your eyes. If you consider that equivalent to disproving a theory, I'm afraid I have disproven yours a number of times in the past, since I too have pointed towards improbabilities in your claims. What I cannot do however is disprove your claims since they are part of the subjective and unmeasurable (as is Fred).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Point taken. I am going to lower my ambitions for the future...