Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Valka D'Ur]

I am not sure what your point is.

Of course you're not.

I can grant that things have been misquoted to you, particularly in an easy to remember short form. I stand by the statement.

J

I stand by what I heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes. You don't get to tell me that I wasn't told or didn't read these things. Whether or not they're misquotes is irrelevant. There are people who believe that God literally wrote the Bible. You don't get to say these people don't exist, or that they didn't say these things.

 

[onejayhawk]

I can say this. IMO If you press them for details, they are not being literal. They don't think God actually picked up the pen.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I have asked that. It's amazing how bizarre people can get when they're defending their religion on the Richard Dawkins/Lawrence Krauss pages on YT.

 

[Berzerker]

wouldn't then the prime mover be unbegotten life?

I dont know, but I'd say life existed before the universe came into being and it made the leap forward (or back if we're devolving) either by physically being present at the birth of the universe or 'written' into the rule book.

Are the waves of the ocean inanimate?

I'd think so... But mixing it with other elements under the right circumstances might produce life, so either the inanimate gave rise to the animate or the animate was present somehow in one or more of those elements. But for the sake of this discussion, yes...

Why does one need to answer that question? A man may win the powerball even if his win was not inevitable.

If the rules made life inevitable, I'd like to meet the author

Whereas we have a perfectly scientific explanation through abiogenesis. Maybe let's go with that.

If abiogenesis is true then who wrote the formula?

Let's not get into this silly nonsense again. You can't have life before there was someplace for it to exist, or anything that it could be composed of.

Maybe someplace existed before the universe

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Maybe someplace existed before the universe

What leads you to say this, other than just arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

[Berzerker]

maybe our universe was born from the collapse of an earlier universe, one that had life... The expansion began before the collapse was complete and life survived

or the rule book made life inevitable and those rules preceded the universe

 

[Perfection]

I dont know, but I'd say life existed before the universe came into being and it made the leap forward (or back if we're devolving) either by physically being present at the birth of the universe or 'written' into the rule book.

That begs the question of why should there be life at that point and how did it get there. Since I already have a decent account for life's formation I don't see the need to appeal to some sort of life prior to the existence of the universe.

I'd think so... But mixing it with other elements under the right circumstances might produce life, so either the inanimate gave rise to the animate or the animate was present somehow in one or more of those elements. But for the sake of this discussion, yes...

Well then for the sake of discussion yeah, animate can come from the inanimate. Just remember that the category "inanimate" can include some extrmely complex phenomena. In general I find the "animate" vs "inanimate" distinction to be a not particularly useful one.

If the rules made life inevitable, I'd like to meet the author

I can write a program that (if implemented on a fast enough and big enough computer) will write the most accurate account of your life possible in 1,000,000 characters (including the parts that haven't happened yet). It simply outputs the following "aaaaa....a," then "aaaaa...b", then "aaaaa...c" etc. I might be a somewhat skilled writer but the best account of your life that that ridiculously simple program can produce would be way better than any account I could come up with (that and I don't really know much about you personally).

Point is I'd be very careful in stating that something very complex and beautiful must logically have an equally complex and beautiful origin. It could in fact be radically simpler.

If you're up for up for unsolicited book recommendations (which I'm always happy to give) I'd invite you to check out Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science and Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. A New Kind of Science shows how very simple rules can lead to surprisingly complex behavior (the book in general is rather batty, so don't take it that seriously if you find yourself disagreeing but it makes some interesting points and has lots of cool pictures). Darwin's Dangerous Idea, is a lot more sober account of how simpler things became more complex (but less mathy and not as many cool pictures)

If abiogenesis is true then who wrote the formula?

Maybe formulas don't spring into existence by you writing them. Did the quadratic formula come into existence when it was written down or was it always there hidden in mathematics and we just came to know it?

 

[Akka]

If the rules made life inevitable, I'd like to meet the author

Anthropic principle says hi.

Also, if you're going to flag under "animate" everything that lead to life, then a) there is nothing "inanimate" and b) you're mangling the definitions of words just so you can shoehorn them into the conclusion you want to reach.

 

[onejayhawk]

I have asked that. It's amazing how bizarre people can get when they're defending their religion on the Richard Dawkins/Lawrence Krauss pages on YT.

I concede that point.

My point still stands. Even the most fundamental groups believe that actual scribing was done by men.

J

 

[Lexicus]

Both have made some humans a lot of money,

I agree with you that they're fictional characters but you must concede there is much more to gods than this.

My point still stands. Even the most fundamental groups believe that actual scribing was done by men.

Which is a rather silly diversion. Whether the literal writing was done by men or god, the Abrahamic religions (at least in theory) are united in their insistence that the Bible is the word of God.

I have to admit to a certain...ah...confusion over the fact that the Creator of the Universe would be so concerned with shellfish and cutting off foreskins.

 

[timtofly]

I guess it is human to use people's beliefs as proof of one's own argument. I would hate to be trapped into thinking that is the only proof.

Most seem to be willing to reject other people's experiences because they cannot be refuted 100%. I keep hearing that doubt is a good thing unless it goes against one's own acceptance of reality.

As for people just making stuff up, it is ironic that some think they are being called a liar, when they accuse ancient humans of the very same thing. When God makes a revelation to a group of people it is more than just subjective. That point has been pointed out, but dismissed unless it can only prove that one side is correct on a topic.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why does one need to answer that question? A man may win the powerball even if his win was not inevitable.

Powerball is a fine analogy. We don't know who's going to win. But we know there will be a winner. In some ways, the winner of the powerball lottery should not be surprised. They bought a ticket and someone was going to have to win.

This is similar to the anthropic principle. With enough of the universe buying tickets to the powerball lottery, we're not surprised there's a winner

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As for people just making stuff up, it is ironic that some think they are being called a liar, when they accuse ancient humans of the very same thing. When God makes a revelation to a group of people it is more than just subjective. That point has been pointed out, but dismissed unless it can only prove that one side is correct on a topic.

There's a world of difference between someone being called a liar when they can verify what they say, and someone being referred to as having invented the concept of gods, spirits, and other supernatural characters. Obviously we don't know exactly which human was the first to say that some spirit - whether human, animal, or nature-inspired - did something or wanted something, so people had to modify their behavior or beliefs accordingly.

But you can scour any Richard Dawkins/Lawrence Krauss YouTube page where comments are enabled, and chances are good that you will find somebody insisting the Bible was written by God.

 

[Farm Boy]

Literal understandings of the universe are the boring kind of arrogant.

 

[onejayhawk]

Which is a rather silly diversion. Whether the literal writing was done by men or god, the Abrahamic religions (at least in theory) are united in their insistence that the Bible is the word of God. I have to admit to a certain...ah...confusion over the fact that the Creator of the Universe would be so concerned with shellfish and cutting off foreskins.

Neither silly not a diversion. Methods matter. Even things like "the Word of God" must be treated carefully. That phrase means different things to different people. Yet, they can all be right. If you just use things like "inspired" and "directed", you fall short. The word the Bible uses about itself is God breathed.

What you can get agreement on is the rest of the verse, profitable for doctrine, reproof, instruction, and training in righteousness. That is a practical way to deal with the Bible--it's useful, regardless who wrote it and how.

J

 

[timtofly]

Powerball is a fine analogy. We don't know who's going to win. But we know there will be a winner. In some ways, the winner of the powerball lottery should not be surprised. They bought a ticket and someone was going to have to win.

This is similar to the anthropic principle. With enough of the universe buying tickets to the powerball lottery, we're not surprised there's a winner

Are we going to assume that the powerball also evolved from nothing? It seems we are still reasoning that an entity had a hand in the process just like the powerball is an entity in the distribution of winnings.
The belief that everything came from nothing, is still a belief. And changing the meaning of God from creator to a stop gap measure, does not change anything. However some just refuse the point that God told us, and that humans did not make it all up.

There's a world of difference between someone being called a liar when they can verify what they say, and someone being referred to as having invented the concept of gods, spirits, and other supernatural characters. Obviously we don't know exactly which human was the first to say that some spirit - whether human, animal, or nature-inspired - did something or wanted something, so people had to modify their behavior or beliefs accordingly.

But you can scour any Richard Dawkins/Lawrence Krauss YouTube page where comments are enabled, and chances are good that you will find somebody insisting the Bible was written by God.

I am still waiting for some proof that it is a man made concept, and that you are not just putting thoughts into the minds of the ancients. There is no claim made in the Bible they were making stories up.

I believe you. That is not the issue. I never disagreed with your experiences. I do not agree with your notion of history.

 

[Lexicus]

Methods matter.

Maybe to people who entertain all this stuff as if it is real.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am still waiting for some proof that it is a man made concept, and that you are not just putting thoughts into the minds of the ancients. There is no claim made in the Bible they were making stories up.

That's not the mechanism. There's not a gathering of wise man who ponder over what story to make up to put in the Bible. In history are events which are retold many times, and they gain legendary and mythical status, growing into the stories of the Bible. Many accounts in history are shown to be subject to that, why would the Bible be different?

Scenario: There's a flood. Many farmers lose their crops and lifestock. One farmer manages to get the lifestock on board a vessel for a few days and saves the most of them. Word of this gets around, and the story of a farmer saving a couple of goats and cows grows into the farmer saving ten cows, 16 goats, and some chicken. Add a higher power into the mix, and it's not too farfetched that the higher power might have given this farmer advanced notice. Perhaps the farmer did see 3 crows flying overhead and saw this as a warning. Through many generations of countless retelling of this story, we get the arc of Noah.

Not saying that this is what happened, but it could easily have.

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe to people who entertain all this stuff as if it is real.

Language matters then, if you will. Having language that encompasses concepts forms and enables our understanding of the concepts. You can perceive and understand more shades of green if you have more words for shades of green. If you have no word for blue, you very well may not perceive blue at all. And this is true for people with the full bundle of normative color-seeing-bits in theirs eyes.

Tracking what words people have for stuff is important because it's going to correlate with how good they are with the related concepts. Heavily religious people tend to have and use words that get a bit muddy on is-s, often enough. In my experience they also tend to have significantly better developed language at dealing with oughts. Doesn't mean they're either stupid or saints, but it'll influence the capacity to hold and incorporate thoughts with more moving bits.

 

[Lexicus]

Tracking what words people have for stuff is important because it's going to correlate with how good they are with the related concepts.

Sure. That wasn't my point: my point was that the question of whether the contents of the Bible are divinely inspired is surely more important than the literal question of how it was written down. What I saw was Valka making the rather uncontroversial point that most Christians claim the Bible to be the word of God, and J engaging in his classic tactic of deceptive goal-post-shifting by saying "well no one says God literally wrote it."