Instead of a political topic, this one is about god/religion/the spiritual/the supernatural.
Being a sensitive topic, feelings can be easily hurt, so to minimize emotional discomfort and aid discussion, I request everyone be polite (no insults).
I don’t believe in any spiritual, supernatural phenomena. I see no persuasive evidence for it, but I am open to being persuaded. Any takers?
but its easy to say that. I mean, obviously a green lantern power ring doesnt contradict any known laws of physics. What is your argument, that Earth is boring? Or are you askng to be convinced of something supernatural like miracles?
“What is your argument, that Earth is boring?”
So lack of belief in the supernatural means life is boring? I reject that argument. Sex, war, humor, music, literature, and many other things make life interesting.
“Or are you askng to be convinced of something supernatural like miracles?”
If possible, I would like a religious/spiritual person to try to persuade me that their beliefs are right.
For any religious people on here, I'm interested in knowing your response to Mises' argument in HA:
Scholastic philosophers and theologians and likewise Theists and Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being, and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke. An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty. If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent. For an all-powerful being there is no pressure to choose between various states of uneasiness; he is not under the necessity of acquiescing in the lesser evil. Omnipotence would mean the power to achieve everything and to enjoy full satisfaction without being restrained by any limitations. But this is incompatible with the very concept of action. For an almighty being the categories of ends and means do not exist.
Do you like the Doors?
“Sex, war, music, literature, humor and the rest all have spiritual components. This statement is true as long as "spiritual" remains undefined ITT.”
Spiritual: relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible
ITT?
“Do you like the Doors?”
What is it?
tunk: For any religious people on here, I'm interested in knowing your response to Mises' argument in HA: Scholastic philosophers and theologians and likewise Theists and Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being, and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke. An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty. If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent. For an all-powerful being there is no pressure to choose between various states of uneasiness; he is not under the necessity of acquiescing in the lesser evil. Omnipotence would mean the power to achieve everything and to enjoy full satisfaction without being restrained by any limitations. But this is incompatible with the very concept of action. For an almighty being the categories of ends and means do not exist.
basically, my argument is that the deity that Mises disproves is too anthropic.
I meant the band, the Doors, with jim morrison the singer, he was able to make crowds riot. Basically, if youre into music, you would be open to my use of arguments in that area. And the interaction between performers and audiences is quite spiritual, and defies materialistic explanations. This is what they discovered when the field of group psychology died out in the 1930s. It couldnt be a SCIENCE because the phenomena were inexplicable from a materialist perspective.
“And the interaction between performers and audiences is quite spiritual,”
A person being excited by a musician does not require a spiritual explanation. The person may jump up and down, joyfully. There is no mystery.
There is nothing spiritual about what you are describing.
“When a performer interacts with an audience, some of the information passes through audio,”
Ok.
“some through visual,”
“some through kinesthetic (to include vibrations and taste/odor)”
“and some information passes through spiritual means.”
Not ok. Audio, visual, and kinesthetic are all scientifically provable. Spiritual means? Prove it.
“Particularly signals from the audience back to the performer. Jim morrison could make crowds riot.”
Becoming excited by music or drugs or sex or another physical thing is outside the spiritual definition: relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible
Tunk,
Mises argument can be tackled in a least three ways.
Firstly, nowhere does Mises establish that felt uneasiness is the cause of action, he merely asserts it; he probably assumes a causal link between demonstrated preference and felt uneasiness when in fact the latter could just be a conditional justification for that particular action.
Secondly, speaking about God without creation you cannot argue the omnis are static as there is no space or time for them to be comparably static. Further why couldn’t some omnis, such as benevolence (love), have an analogous dynamism? Taking the Trinitarian model of the Father, Son and Spirit loving each other in eternity it would seem to be personable (not necessarily a human person- I see a distinction) love the only way it could be comprehendible would be to have a sort of dynamic edge.
As a side note the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory if we define God correctly: defined Biblically, God is the Father, the Son and the Spirit loving each other eternally. As such 1+1+1= 3. Each person is distinct but together are God; however since their names are relational ones it is difficult, but not impossible, to study one without the other- a Father implies a Son etc. (Not sure though how the Spirit works at this point) They also share a nature in the same way mankind shares a nature.
Thirdly, there’s Long’s argument:
Mises' argument is essentially this: 1. Action involves the use of means to achieve ends. 2. An omnipotent being could achieve any desired end directly, without the use of means. 3. Therefore, an omnipotent being could not act. My criticism is of premise 2. I claim that Mises is thinking only of cases where means are external to the end. But what about the case where the means is part of the end? In other words, suppose that God's goal is not just "to achieve X" but "to achieve X by means Y." In that case, even an omnipotent being couldn't achieve *that* goal except by means Y. Hence God could intelligibly choose Y as a means to X, and so could act.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Malachi:Jim morrison could make crowds riot.
No he couldn't. The crowds rioted on their own.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I remember seeing a show a few years back, where researchers believed they had found a gene which causes people to believe in God. I found a piece about it on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene but I haven't been bothered reading up on it.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
Physiocrat:Firstly, nowhere does Mises establish that felt uneasiness is the cause of action, he merely asserts it; he probably assumes a causal link between demonstrated preference and felt uneasiness when in fact the latter could just be a conditional justification for that particular action.
Please explain this better. For Mises, felt uneasiness (or a desire in a sentient being for a more preferable state of the universe) is the cause of action (of said sentient being) because that's inherent to his definition of action. What definition of action are you using above?
Please explain this better if you can, as well.
Thirdly, there’s Long’s argument: Mises' argument is essentially this: 1. Action involves the use of means to achieve ends. 2. An omnipotent being could achieve any desired end directly, without the use of means. 3. Therefore, an omnipotent being could not act. My criticism is of premise 2. I claim that Mises is thinking only of cases where means are external to the end. But what about the case where the means is part of the end? In other words, suppose that God's goal is not just "to achieve X" but "to achieve X by means Y." In that case, even an omnipotent being couldn't achieve *that* goal except by means Y. Hence God could intelligibly choose Y as a means to X, and so could act.
Mises' argument is essentially this:
1. Action involves the use of means to achieve ends. 2. An omnipotent being could achieve any desired end directly, without the use of means. 3. Therefore, an omnipotent being could not act.
My criticism is of premise 2. I claim that Mises is thinking only of cases where means are external to the end. But what about the case where the means is part of the end? In other words, suppose that God's goal is not just "to achieve X" but "to achieve X by means Y." In that case, even an omnipotent being couldn't achieve *that* goal except by means Y. Hence God could intelligibly choose Y as a means to X, and so could act.
That's a misrepresentation of Mises' argument. With or without means, the very fact that a state of the universe X exists as something desired but not (yet) achieved by him makes him not omnipotent. Anything desired by a truly omnipotent being would have already been achieved, eliminating the cause for action (as defined by Mises).
It seems that all of these (God) discussions are about definitions and, in the end, probably prove nothing either way.
z1235: Please explain this better. For Mises, felt uneasiness (or a desire in a sentient being for a more preferable state of the universe) is the cause of action (of said sentient being) because that's inherent to his definition of action. What definition of action are you using above?
What I am saying is being thirsty isn't the cause for you to drink a bottle of water but is the reason, or justification for your action. Human Action, even the way Mises forumlated, need not be deterministic.
My definition of action is the use of means to achieve an end.
God and Time- I would argue that God is atemporal without creation but temporal with. Note I don't use before creation because there is no time to be before. Our concept of stasis are related to space and time. Now without space and time the omnis may not be static in the way we concieve of stasis. To say God is loving implies a plurarity in God since love is a relational concept. As such a personal relationship must have elements of dynamism of sorts otherwise their love would be totally different to our conception.
z1235: That's a misrepresentation of Mises' argument. With or without means, the very fact that a state of the universe X exists as something desired but not (yet) achieved by him makes him not omnipotent. Anything desired by a truly omnipotent being would have already been achieved, eliminating the cause for action (as defined by Mises).
But supposing the desire can only be brought to fruition via a particular means? This doesn't invalidate his omnipotence but raises a question regarding his value scale. Further there's a question of when God desires and as above God and time isn't the most straight forward of topics.
The deconstruction of a god is someone creating their argument of what a god is or ought to be, and then taking it a part on how it's not possible by science. The focus in this thread is the monotheistic Abrahamic god. I can agree on how it's not possible for such a god to exist, but if I turn the tables that a god isn't a first creator, he's created from the universe and at most is simply a demiurge while also not being all powerful the view of a god is changed. I'm making this case because the belief of this type of deity (all knowing, all powerful, etc.) wasn't always the case.
Vladimir, I don't really agree with the "God gene" theory, but I follow up more on Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell's views that it's something more subconscious and pyschological, and all these archetypes are projections from our inner self to more natural motivating powers/energy.
Gero: Instead of a political topic, this one is about god/religion/the spiritual/the supernatural. Being a sensitive topic, feelings can be easily hurt, so to minimize emotional discomfort and aid discussion, I request everyone be polite (no insults). I don’t believe in any spiritual, supernatural phenomena. I see no persuasive evidence for it, but I am open to being persuaded. Any takers?
I think the classic proof is that we see that things are coming into being and since nothing can come to be except from what is, then there must be some supremely existent starting point called God (and we also know that there cannot be an infinite number of causes, again because nothing could come to be from things which are not).
tunk:For any religious people on here, I'm interested in knowing your response to Mises' argument in HA: Scholastic philosophers and theologians and likewise Theists and Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being, and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke. An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty. If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent. For an all-powerful being there is no pressure to choose between various states of uneasiness; he is not under the necessity of acquiescing in the lesser evil. Omnipotence would mean the power to achieve everything and to enjoy full satisfaction without being restrained by any limitations. But this is incompatible with the very concept of action. For an almighty being the categories of ends and means do not exist.
It seems that the ancients believed that God was eternal so his actions are not successive but are accomplished at an ever-present "now". I'm assuming then, that history and time are so present to God. Therefore, his actions are always being eternally accomplished and so God doesn't just act; he super-acts.
Bert:The deconstruction of a god is someone creating their argument of what a god is or ought to be, and then taking it a part on how it's not possible by science. The focus in this thread is the monotheistic Abrahamic god. I can agree on how it's not possible for such a god to exist, but if I turn the tables that a god isn't a first creator, he's created from the universe and at most is simply a demiurge while also not being all powerful the view of a god is changed. I'm making this case because the belief of this type of deity (all knowing, all powerful, etc.) wasn't always the case. Vladimir, I don't really agree with the "God gene" theory, but I follow up more on Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell's views that it's something more subconscious and pyschological, and all these archetypes are projections from our inner self to more natural motivating powers/energy.
a question: what do you mean by god then, if not all-powerful being or beings?
“I think the classic proof is that we see that things are coming into being and since nothing can come to be except from what is, then there must be some supremely existent starting point called God (and we also know that there cannot be an infinite number of causes, again because nothing could come to be from things which are not)."
Being unable to explain the origin of something, the proposed solution is to claim that it was created by a creator whose existence is unexplained. That does not explain much. It is basically is “I can’t explain it or science can’t explain it, so God-did-it.” In the past God explained volcanoes, hurricanes, disease, you-name-it, but now, as science advances, there is less and less need for godly explanations. However, even if scientific knowledge reverted to zero, admitting we don’t know is more correct than inventing deities to explain things.
Gero: “I think the classic proof is that we see that things are coming into being and since nothing can come to be except from what is, then there must be some supremely existent starting point called God (and we also know that there cannot be an infinite number of causes, again because nothing could come to be from things which are not)." Being unable to explain the origin of something, the proposed solution is to claim that it was created by a creator whose existence is unexplained. That does not explain much. It is basically is “I can’t explain it or science can’t explain it, so God-did-it.” In the past God explained volcanoes, hurricanes, disease, you-name-it, but now, as science advances, there is less and less need for godly explanations. However, even if scientific knowledge reverted to zero, admitting we don’t know is more correct than inventing deities to explain things.
To me, it almost sort-of seems like an argument from ignorance too. But if one looks to the truth conditions I think it has this obvious strength: If you really believe that everything comes from something, and that there can't be an infinite causal chain (because again, you already believe that everything comes from something and finite things make finite things), then there just has to be some super-being at the start.
Again if you think that everything is caused, and that effects are proportioned to cause, then there must be some first cause or else you're really left with no explanation.
And once more, one really can't say that something finite caused things (again due to disproportion b/t effect and cause) nor for the previous reasons can we say that nothing caused things, so we are really left with the last option of the infinite caused things.
FWIW, my view on the spiritual world and mysticism generally.
First of all, we can divide knowledge into two realms, the rational and the mystical. Rational knowledge concerns that body of knowledge for which reasons can be given or which is so apparent as a part of direct experience that no reasons need to be given for it. Mystical knowledge is, therefore, necessarily speculative because speculation is all that is left when something lies outside of one's experience and no reasons can be given for it.
Second, the use of knowledge is to inform choice. False knowledge can be harmful because it can frustrate action (the use of means to attain ends) by propagating ignorance or incorrectly assessing cause-and-effect in the world-as-it-is. All false rational knowledge can, in principle, be eliminated from one's mind. False rational knowledge that masqeurades as mystical knowledge, however, can escape scrutiny by dodging reason by appealing to fiat at the weak point in the argument.
I find hardline rationalism (there is no mystical knowledge, that is, we know there is no mystical aspect to the world) to be untenable and hubristic. As such, it falls victim to the same error as traditional mysticism - the aggrandizement of human knowledge beyond its actual limits. I harbor mysticism regarding the fact of existence (why there is something rather than nothing) and a few other aspects of the world but the criteria that I apply for allowing mysticism within myself are very stringent. Only that which is undeniable (such as the fact of existence) and which cannot be explained even in principle, justifies mysticism, in my view.
The existence of God is deniable, therefore, it does not justify mystical belief in my view. Arguments to the contrary (God's existence is necessary) invariably appeal to mystical knowledge at some step or another, usually at the weakest step. Nevertheless, dogmatic assertions to the effect that some kind of mystical being that transcends human comprehension cannot and does not exist are hubristic. So, with regard to the existence of such mystical/spiritual beings, the only epistemologically responsible position is agnosticism. More importantly, the speculative nature of such beings should be underscored at all times - they are anthropomorphisms more than anything.
Clayton -
“If you really believe that everything comes from something, and that there can't be an infinite causal chain (because again, you already believe that everything comes from something and finite things make finite things), then there just has to be some super-being at the start.”
You can’t explain something, so you end the chain of causality by just saying that God started everything without explaining where God came from. If God just always existed, why can’t the universe just always exist? Instead of something coming from nothing, everything could have always existed, just in different forms.
Now, what is a myth? The dictionary definition of a myth would be stories about gods. So then you have to ask the next question: What is a god? A god is a personification of a motivating power or a value system that functions in human life and in the universe — the powers of your own body and of nature. The myths are metaphorical of spiritual potentiality in the human being, and the same powers that animate our life animate the life of the world.
But I dont see exactly how to prove this type of claim to you. Some things just have to be experienced...do you believe that humans have a subtle energy field around them? This is what some people call an "aura." it is made of different types of energy and some people can see this energy. They recently discovered that humans have the same ability to see magnetic fields as birds do. Auras have been photographed, see kirlian photography. Do you want links? (Not being snarky, I just have to work harder to provide them cause I use a tablet and I figure you would only be persuaded by the results of your own investigations anyway.) so let me know.
you are quite correct. I see now that my conversational tone was inappropriate and not very informative.
Gero: You can’t explain something, so you end the chain of causality by just saying that God started everything without explaining where God came from. If God just always existed, why can’t the universe just always exist? Instead of something coming from nothing, everything could have always existed, just in different forms.
It's not that you can't explain something and that's why there's a God, its rather that no other explanation can possibly be correct. In addition to the plain fact that the idea of causality as something with greater being effecting something of derivative lower being, implies a greatest being capable of setting all this in motion, there's the added fact that (for all finite beings) the necessary and sufficient condition for x changing y is that x must be set in motion by something else. So if you believe this, then there's no finite being capable of starting things (since this would result in nothing happening as per the "necessary condition") and clearly nothing is an inadequate answer, so the infinite in being must be the first cause.
It doesn't rely on ignorance but rather a knowledge of potency/act and being; one doesn't say that because they don't know how the universe started therefore that implies a God, but they say that because they cannot fathom another way for the universe to exist (because one cannot fathom the impossible) then the only other choice is that a God did it -disjunct subtraction.
As to the question of why the universe couldn't always exist, that's actually a much more difficult question since some people believed that one could prove or disprove that the it always did. But one cannot scientifically prove/disprove that the universe always was. First because the will of God to make the universe was not necessary but free and we can't know what happens from pure will and second because any attempt to show that the universe always existed depends on data extracted from the universe, so we'll argue circuitously. But if you're a Catholic (which depends less on your theology than on whether or not you were baptized), then you would hold only on faith that the universe wasn't always and had a definite beginning.
Certainly though the being/time/size of the universe even if it wasn't finite IMO had to be created anyways since there's a difference between infinite in being (God) and being which is infinite (universe). This is probably true due to the fact that being means different things.
Gero: “If you really believe that everything comes from something, and that there can't be an infinite causal chain (because again, you already believe that everything comes from something and finite things make finite things), then there just has to be some super-being at the start.” You can’t explain something, so you end the chain of causality by just saying that God started everything without explaining where God came from. If God just always existed, why can’t the universe just always exist? Instead of something coming from nothing, everything could have always existed, just in different forms.
“"science" presupposes materialism.”
The issue is not whether mountains or music or certain chemicals exist. The issue is the existence of the spiritual. I do not see persuasive evidence for it. You do. I find your evidence of rioting at music to be unpersuasive.
“But I dont see exactly how to prove this type of claim to you.”
I have searched and searched for persuasive arguments for the spiritual/supernatural, but none have satisfied me. That is one reason I started this thread.
“Some things just have to be experienced...do you believe that humans have a subtle energy field around them?”
I am not a physics person, but I speculate that there may be an electromagnetic field that surrounds the body. Just rubbing a balloon can generate static electricity, so have a weak form of electromagnetism does not seem to be unlikely. Still, that does not prove the existence of the spiritual, the definition of which I have repeatedly reposted to ensure that you know what I am referencing.
“It's not that you can't explain something and that's why there's a God, its rather that no other explanation can possibly be correct.”
The big bang is nonsense? “But about before that?” I don’t know. Scientists do not know everything, but slowly, the boundaries of ignorance are pushed further and further back leaving supernatural explanations less and less room to hide. How do you know that there is "no other explanation"? You do not have a mastery of the physcial sciences and knowledge of all future scientific discoveries and can declare for all time that the universe's origin is forever a mystery.
“In addition to the plain fact that the idea of causality as something with greater being effecting something of derivative lower being,”
Greater being? Lower being? Are these gods or greater being (cause) and lower being (effect)?
“implies a greatest being capable of setting all this in motion,”
No, you just don’t know, so to explain the complex universe, you invent an even more complex creator, compounding the mystery of how everything came to be.
An infidel’s opinion: If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?"—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?
“The first thing that happened. Whatever created the arrow of time. So you cant just turn around and argue atheistic definitionalism. This is your thread, which definition of term "God" would you like to discuss? Usually the theist picks the definition ;->”
God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
We can even discuss polytheism if someone wants to argue that.
Malachi:It depends on what the terms of the debate are. For example, you are arguing against a definition there. Cant be done. We define term "God" to mean that first uncaused cause. The first thing that happened. Whatever created the arrow of time. So you cant just turn around and argue atheistic definitionalism.
Gero:Scientists do not know everything, but slowly, the boundaries of ignorance are pushed further and further back leaving supernatural explanations less and less room to hide.
Gero:God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. We can even discuss polytheism if someone wants to argue that.
Gero: Being unable to explain the origin of something, the proposed solution is to claim that it was created by a creator whose existence is unexplained. That does not explain much. It is basically is “I can’t explain it or science can’t explain it, so God-did-it.” In the past God explained volcanoes, hurricanes, disease, you-name-it, but now, as science advances, there is less and less need for godly explanations. However, even if scientific knowledge reverted to zero, admitting we don’t know is more correct than inventing deities to explain things.
Such an argument is not a God of the gaps argument. A regression of infinite causes is essentially causeless as such if we want to hold to cause and effect either the universe is an uncaused cause (i say this as time must have come into existence at one point as infinite time would cause the same problem of other regressions of infitity) or an uncaused creator brought it into being- as such either the universe or God must act to bring time into being. Irrespective of the present level of science this will always be the question. I would then venture to ask what is the nature of the universe and does it exhibit the qualities necessary to be an uncaused cause. Now if the nature of God explains his existence then there's no problem.
You may find Liebniz's cosmologiucal argument interesting. See here partially down the page.
A few clarifications:
lower/greater being means cause and effect not gods. In general the reason for God is basically what physiocrat wrote, but in particular, the reason why the big bang and science doesn't satisfy the theist is that there's (as you wrote) no apparent way to know that you've figured out everything; the whole "black swan/white swan" problem.
A common misconception though: God is not believed to be more complex than the universe, to the contrary he's supposed to be simpler.
“Oh, really? Supernatural explanations or spiritual beings?”
I use supernatural as an all-encompassing term. When I started this thread I used multiple words to describe what I disbelieved in because many people use different phrases on this topic. They may say, “I am not religious, but spiritual” or “I feel that there is more to life than the material world”.
“Again, that's the definition of capital "G" God, so either someone is debunking a god, a first creator god, or simply the Christian deity God.”
I was asked the definition of God that I responded to by Malachi, so I provided it. People may be misunderstanding each other in this thread because people are using different definitions.
“For the sake of argument I'm making the case the universe can create the god, the god does not always have to create the universe, being said something else beyond a god can be the first creator - universe/energy/Big Bang/whatever. If I say a god was created from the universe, can you debunk the existence of that god if he came from the same first cause of all other life?”
I have not heard that argument before. However, just saying “god was created from the universe” does not make it so.
“A regression of infinite causes is essentially causeless as such if we want to hold to cause and effect either the universe is an uncaused cause”
“You may find Liebniz's cosmologiucal argument interesting.”
Nope. Seen too many formulations of the cosmological argument.
Liebniz said, “the only type of thing that can exist outside of the universe is something that is non-physical, such as abstract things, like numbers, or immaterial things, such as minds.” I always thought of the universe as everything that exists, so how can anything be outside of it? Numbers were created in reference to physical things: apples, cars, bananas, and etcetera. The humans who created the number concept are physical things. The universe is physical. The idea of non-physical is silly to me. Doing math requires certain physical chemicals in your head to operate. I don’t know what an abstract mind is. I always thought a mind was contained in one’s skull, but an abstract mind? Might as well call it an abstract pancake because that makes just as much sense to me.
“A common misconception though: God is not believed to be more complex than the universe, to the contrary he's supposed to be simpler.”
Bert’s argument of god being created from the universe is compatible with what you said, but the more common view that God created the universe from nothing shows that God is more complex than the universe.
Gero:I was asked the definition of God that I responded to by Malachi, so I provided it. People may be misunderstanding each other in this thread because people are using different definitions.
Gero:I have not heard that argument before. However, just saying “god was created from the universe” does not make it so.
Gero:I don’t know what an abstract mind is. I always thought a mind was contained in one’s skull, but an abstract mind? Might as well call it an abstract pancake because that makes just as much sense to me.
Gero:Bert’s argument of god being created from the universe is compatible with what you said, but the more common view that God created the universe from nothing shows that God is more complex than the universe.
"Is a thought or belief material? Is an emotion material?"
In my view, Bert, all emotion, thought, and belief are the result of brain activity.
“What was God if all existence did not exist infinitely?”
I don’t understand the question. Reword it, please.
fakename: Gero: Instead of a political topic, this one is about god/religion/the spiritual/the supernatural. Being a sensitive topic, feelings can be easily hurt, so to minimize emotional discomfort and aid discussion, I request everyone be polite (no insults). I don’t believe in any spiritual, supernatural phenomena. I see no persuasive evidence for it, but I am open to being persuaded. Any takers? I think the classic proof is that we see that things are coming into being and since nothing can come to be except from what is, then there must be some supremely existent starting point called God (and we also know that there cannot be an infinite number of causes, again because nothing could come to be from things which are not).
classic assertion and logical fallacy.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
It's turtles all the way down:
"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" "