Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: neutronflux

Mother nature is a serial killer, or is God, or do people all do it to theirselves?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TzarChasm

But Mother Nature will take care of you? If an asteroid, comet, or gamma radiation burst doesn’t end the earth.

Our need to control what can't be controlled is what defines god.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I believe what you're trying to say is that we ascribe all that that can 't be explained to God.

That's what seems to be done by the use of science now. Rationalise everything until there's no room left for a god. Remove the word god from vocabulary and give them the idea being right by removing their trust in other people.

A strong delusion.

I would say the quantum observer enigma would lead to proving something

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

I believe what you're trying to say is that we ascribe all that that can 't be explained to God.

That's what seems to be done by the use of science now. Rationalise everything until there's no room left for a god. Remove the word god from vocabulary and give them the idea being right by removing their trust in other people.

A strong delusion.

I said what I was trying to say. I never mentioned rationalization or analysis, only the need for control and the forces that defy our God given right to exploit every inch of reality for our gain. So we invented god to break rules for us, because he loves us and would do anything including filicide just to preserve us from the natural consequences of existence. But then we run into a quandary when the creature we designed to cheat the laws of physics also has to possess a moral code that punishes rule breakers and enforces what is "right". What a fascinating conflict of interests.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That would be a early ape human kind of thing to do. I don't believe in the early ape human theory.

Let's talk about abiogenesis, it is related to the present thread, tell me, the poster* who brought up that word, what is your concept or definition of that word, in less than 30 words.


Dear readers, please read the text below under the caption [For your orientation], so that you will know what the thread is all about.
_________________________




[For your orientation anyone]

For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

*And everyone else who has some database of knowledge about abiogenesis.

.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

That would be a early ape human kind of thing to do. I don't believe in the early ape human theory.

I'm sure early ape humans didn't believe in our world either.

a reply to: Pachomius

Abiogenesis is the emergence of original life from the primordial soup of non living substances around 3.5 billion years ago

I actually like this question, and here is the shortest possible version of my answer. I can expand on anything.

Answer:

I am going to start with the idea of Father Georges Lemaître (Big Bang Therory).

From there the existence of god becomes an unnecessary abstraction. Even those wonderful synchronous things that are considered miraculous are actually guaranteed to happen given the number of possible outcomes, and to an equal degree the opposite of a miracle happens.

Even the run of events that occur fall around a statistical median, a middle ground. If you ascribe positive and negative value to said events it will likely cancel itself out over the longrun like red and black on a roulette wheel, even through subjective lensing.

The apparent design of the universe exists in part because an excess of energy at the big bang caused an imbalance in matter and antimatter giving objects mass through the higgs-boson.

With mass you have relativity and a coherent explanation for all the structure of the universe, save dark matter and energy, which could still be an aberration. Objects adhere to thermodynamic law and seek the most energy efficient structure possible. (See stars, trees, and cells)

In my opinion nothing after inflation needs a god to exist. However, these are the leading guesses for what caused the big bang inflation:

M-theory brane collision, in a cosmic bulk that is infinite and needs no creation.

A random Vacuum fluctuation is zero point field of potential energy that always existed, spawns an infinite number of universes, and needs no creation

A bubble off a preexisting universe.

Intelligent creation of a god that always existed.

Unfortunately apologetics wins, as there is no way to observe beyond inflation, all those options are equivocal to one another, and are inherent abstractions, even if some of them have associated proofs. A preuniverse in any form always existing is the same as a god in any form always existing. And as much as I would like to say god is impossible, I can't.

While I don't personally believe in intelligent design I can't even rule out we all exist in a hyper-intelligent alien race's civilization. But that has it's own chicken and egg thing going.

With only WMAP and CERN to go on, I don't think anyone can truly prove anything definitively. In string theory there are planes of existences with different laws of physics we can only express on paper. And onwards in layered multidimensional explanations. And even that M-Theory proof doesn't definitely prove we exist on a as strings tethered to branes waving in an infinite cosmic bulk.

In zero point explanations you still have to explain why an ever present field of potential exists and if the random fluctuations in it (variations of the speed of light) are truly random.

Even in my own vacuum genesis leanings I give that field and random fluctuation the role of god. If I was more postmodern I could argue that field is god.

And while an antitheist can argue for alternatives to divinity and hold a valid argument an atheist that absolutely asserts god can't exist has no valid position because they lack the very empiricism they often defer to.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm pretty sure about that too

a reply to: TzarChasm

I find peace in my God, and don’t sweat the things beyond my control. So no. God for me is not about control. In fact. Because as humans, we messed up the blessing of free will. And therefore cursed ourselves.

I’ll place that by it’s self...

Because as humans, we messed up the blessing of free will. And therefore cursed ourselves. Is that a false statement?

You

So we invented god to break rules for us,

If there is no god, only natural selection. What rules are you referring to? No god, it’s all a natural process.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Another take on the “rules”. What about people of science obsession with power over life and death. Some of that obsession seems more on target on what your claiming. And unethical. But, again. If there is no god. Then there are no rules. Nothing is unethical.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Erosion shaped the rocks which by the right conditions came to life.

It was by the right conditions they havent found yet and did a thousand times over in laboratory

But, remember, by the right conditions billions of years ago. No proof of right conditions though. Try not being gullible. There's proof it wasn't by the toothfairy either.

How much does this sound like it was grasped out of thin air to you?

a reply to: TzarChasm

I live in a town where crows pop over everything in the winter. Trying passing a law that crows cannot poop on the sidewalk. But humankind is very easily controlled by artificial rules.......

a reply to: neutronflux

He doesn't know us.

"So shall we just concentrate on that statement for now?" -Nothin


Yes, of course! Just keep to one interpretation, the one you love most, okay?

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Pachomius

Hi. Sorry for the overload. Will try to keep it more concise.

You made a statement:

My evidence that God exists in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, is our existence, you and I and he she it.

...and asked me if it was understood.

My reply included a few possible interpretations, and the goal was to show you that your statement was not really understood by me.

So shall we just concentrate on that statement for now ?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Pachomius

Abiogenesis is the emergence of original life from the primordial soup of non living substances around 3.5 billion years ago

So, I really don't have any problem with that, except that the ultimate cause of the arrival of life is nothing-ness as opposed to something-ness, that is what I take exception to.

My submission is that God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning - meaning God is the ultimate creator cause, even though He did it through intermediate causes, but these also ultimately owe their existence to Him.

a reply to: Pachomius

Prove it.
Unless you can do so, you are welcome to your opinion.

originally posted by: Pachomius
"So shall we just concentrate on that statement for now?" -Nothin


Yes, of course! Just keep to one interpretation, the one you love most, okay?

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Pachomius

Hi. Sorry for the overload. Will try to keep it more concise.

You made a statement:

My evidence that God exists in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, is our existence, you and I and he she it.

...and asked me if it was understood.

My reply included a few possible interpretations, and the goal was to show you that your statement was not really understood by me.

So shall we just concentrate on that statement for now ?

What if there are none that are most Loved ?