Existence of God (split from old thread)

[onejayhawk]

'I don't believe you'. (Evidence of God refuted.)

Does that work for you in real life? Here it seems sophomoric.

Technically so is God. Bringing God into the equation complicates everything unnecessarily and makes reality even harder to explain as a whole.

No one ever brings God into the equation. He's already there. The trick is finding points where God can be treated as negligible.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is reincarnation really that much a clear superior over reanimation?

 

[Agent327]

Does that work for you in real life? Here it seems sophomoric.

So, the OP is sophomoric? I think the proper word is illogical. (What I did was use the poster's type of argument to show it's not actually proof.)

No one ever brings God into the equation. He's already there.

And this we call sophistry. (More particularly a circular argument, but slightly different than in the OP.)

 

[warpus]

I wouldnt be so sure about that. It may be immense/infinite/absolute but less complicated even very simple.

If we're talking about an all-powerful creature which sees everything that happens in the universe and has the power to do virtually anything in it.. a creature which created the universe in the first place..

I really doubt such a creature would have a simple mind. I mean, what do I know, right? But it does seem like a very reasonable assumption. Assuming the opposite of this doesn't make sense to me at all

No one ever brings God into the equation.

I am talking about people who when explaining how the universe came to be, use God as the explanation. Not people who bring God into existence or whatever, I don't think anyone can do that.

This creates an even bigger problem than previously, because to explain the existence of {A}, the answer is {B}, an entity more complex than {A}, and so we now have a more complex question on our hands than the initial one we were trying to answer. Making "God" not a very good answer to the question.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It depends from what pov you are studing reality.

Reality does not depend on human point of view at all. Don't confuse our perception of reality with actual reality. We update the former based on controlled interactions with the latter.

Do you give importance only to a physical science? From the pov of philosophy or metaphysics these question has to be answered.

If you want to use something other than physical science, show me something other than physical science that has a consistently measurable effect on reality. Even the brain and its cognitive processes are part of physical reality.

Its too simplified and ignorant view to think that thousand years of spirituality hasnt shown anything useful.

The concept of spirituality itself is generated through a physical process in the brain. We have no reason to believe the concept would continue to exist if humanity didn't. In this sense we have no reason to accept spirituality as reality aside from its status as a human social construct that physical brains generate. That's as far as evidence shows.

How does science test for usefulness of art and music?

Wrong question. How does one evaluate for usefulness in the absolute sense in the first place? You can't. You're starting with a question that's already made several assumptions, and that's a no sell. It's the brain deciding what is "useful" in the first place, and the brain is also still bound by causal processes to the best evidence has discovered.

I claim humanity would be class of masters and a mass of slaves if not for spirituality.

I counter-claim BS. You do not know this and to claim otherwise is massive hindsight bias. Slavery and spirituality were compatible for centuries. Likening a secular viewpoint to Hitler is disingenuous to the extreme and isn't worth the time of day. Use reasoning.

 

[onejayhawk]

I am talking about people who when explaining how the universe came to be, use God as the explanation. Not people who bring God into existence or whatever, I don't think anyone can do that.

This creates an even bigger problem than previously, because to explain the existence of {A}, the answer is {B}, an entity more complex than {A}, and so we now have a more complex question on our hands than the initial one we were trying to answer. Making "God" not a very good answer to the question.

The simplest explanation for the existence of the universe is that a higher power constructed it. Any explanation should start by dealing with the obvious.

So, the OP is sophomoric? I think the proper word is illogical. (What I did was use the poster's type of argument to show it's not actually proof.) And this we call sophistry. (More particularly a circular argument, but slightly different than in the OP.)

Your post reads better without the quote in the middle, though attempted sophistry is more accurate.

J

 

[PhroX]

Simple explanations have a pretty consistent habit of being wrong....

 

[Broken_Erika]

We are all delusions of a mad god.

 

[Lexicus]

It's also obviously not the simplest explanation as it introduces an entity even more complex than the universe (the "higher power") that then must be explained.

Since this explanation will amount to handwaving it's easier to remove a step from this process and just go ahead and handwave the universe itself.

 

[onejayhawk]

Simple explanations have a pretty consistent habit of being wrong....

Simplistic, perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

J

 

[Lexicus]

As I said, Occam's Razor tells us to handwave the universe, not to introduce an entity even more complex than the universe and handwave that.

 

[warpus]

The simplest explanation for the existence of the universe is that a higher power constructed it.

That's not the simplest explanation, because it makes everything a lot more complicated.

"How did the universe come into existence?"

"Imagine this thing greater than the Universe that exists outside of it"

...

 

[Broken_Erika]

Is reincarnation really that much a clear superior over reanimation?

Well i suppose it doesn't have some of the side effects of reanimation. Such as an insatiable hunger for brains.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The simplest explanation for the existence of the universe is that a higher power constructed it. Any explanation should start by dealing with the obvious.

"A witch did it" takes fewer words, but it is not a simpler explanation.

You are stuck with the same questions to answer as before, but with the added detail of the witch (or god), which you now also have to explain.

That is not a simpler explanation. It is strictly more complex, without actually explaining anything in the process too. That is not something you can do and invoke Occam's razor.

Well i suppose it doesn't have some of the side effects of reanimation. Such as an insatiable hunger for brains.

So many newbie necromancers. There's more to necromancy than just massing up the Zom-boys!

 

[Broken_Erika]

That's not the simplest explanation, because it makes everything a lot more complicated.

"How did the universe come into existence?"

"Imagine this thing greater than the Universe that exists outside of it"

...

like this?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The simplest explanation for the existence of the universe is that a higher power constructed it. Any explanation should start by dealing with the obvious.

J

That's not an explanation. How did the higher power construct it?

 

[onejayhawk]

That's not an explanation. How did the higher power construct it?

A bit of this, a pinch of that, season to taste and bake 6 billion years.

The concept of universe-as-petri-dish has appeal. Whether a specific phenomenon is direct or side effect, it is easiest to assume some form of design and some intended experimental product. Not necessarily best, but easiest.

J

 

[PhroX]

Simplistic, perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

J

I am aware of Occam's Razor. It says nothing about simplicity. It instead - as the article clearly points out in the very first paragraph - is based on the number of assumptions involved. Those are very different things. You can have very complicated explanation with very few assumptions - in fact, it's quite likely as often much of the complexity is to remove the need for assumptions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

A bit of this, a pinch of that, season to taste and bake 6 billion years.

Big bang: big pop, expand for 13.7 billion years: universe.

Both seem similar simple.

 

[Lexicus]

The concept of universe-as-petri-dish has appeal. Whether a specific phenomenon is direct or side effect, it is easiest to assume some form of design and some intended experimental product. Not necessarily best, but easiest.

Easiest here meaning laziest, I guess?