Point Blank: Is there a God, why and why not?

I dont disagree that there is potentially a more complex biological being in the unvierse than ourselves, as you argument states.

I find the jump from a more complex biological being to a supernatural being a completely different playing field. I have to say I dont think your probability argument works in this instance.

Going back to the original point, would you agree that it is more probable that a less complex system / object / being / thing - would exist from nothing, rather than something more complex?

Originally posted by Unsane
Going back to the original point, would you agree that it is more probable that a less complex system / object / being / thing - would exist from nothing, rather than something more complex?

If we're going to think logically, although in a discussion like this I'm not sure it is possible, I would say neither. Nothing can come out of nothing, regardless of its complexity.

Maybe the universe, God, and us are just an impossibility in the first place.

it's not that difficult.

LOGIC:

everything fits as beliefs in the absolute truth,
that absolute truth exsists, we know that because
'nothing' is a belief too, only possible by being there to believe it.

the absolute truth is not a slave of a higher truth,
because then it becomes replaced by that higher truth.

That higher truth is truth as one and it means it is free
of itself, but chooses to be itself.

One means lies have to be included in the truth,
or truth is not one, lies can not exsist outside truth
or truth is not absolute anymore

so we have this life as a paradox life,
where beliefs can belief beliefs that aren't true,
logic kills itself. And god becomes free.

God is one. It is better then never ending cycles,
where god is divided, and truth doesn't exsist.

reply to post by pasttheclouds


I dont know if it is just me, but I didn't understand a word of your post. Maybe you could explain in more detail?

And yet, while physics tells us that life is almost absolutely improbable/impossible, it exists. Can we really rely on probabilities?

Yes, you are going shopping, the outcome will be you are going to find your self in a supermarket. Probability is the outcome of the physical world.

Now picture something else.

Take a ball and drop it on a flat surface, the ball will bounce in random direction....not. You think it bounces in a random direction but the truth is that deep down on the flat surface there are microscopic differences making the ball going in a predefined direction.


Genuine random effects are when you drop a round ball, a cat opens the window by pushing against it, the strong wind outside blows into the house making the ball change it's predefined trajectory established by the microscopic sharp edges on the flat floor.

So I contradict the user that said there is no such thing as chance. A singularity can create a chance to alter events.To obtain a true random event you need more than one object and a singluarity.In this case the ball with it's predefined path, a window, wind and the singularity(the cat) that will trigger the random event.

Is in it special that only creatures and singularities may cause random events, the rest is predifiend.

There must be a god.

Originally posted by Unsane
Going back to the original point, would you agree that it is more probable that a less complex system / object / being / thing - would exist from nothing, rather than something more complex?

This does not have a straightforward answer.

On the one hand, perhaps it is more probable that a less complex system would exist from nothing, rather than from something more complex, because otherwise the more complex thing would have to have come from nothing first, which is less likely.

On the other hand, if a more complex thing did come first, then it is definitely more likely that the less complex thing came from the more complex thing.


BUT, think about this consequence of your argument...

A water bucket (being a creation of humans) is more complex than a human being, since it is less likely to form from nothing than humans.

The greater the being, the less complex?

By the same argument, God is more likely to form from nothing than one of His creations.

Originally posted by Unsane
I dont disagree that there is potentially a more complex biological being in the unvierse than ourselves, as you argument states.

I find the jump from a more complex biological being to a supernatural being a completely different playing field. I have to say I dont think your probability argument works in this instance.

Going back to the original point, would you agree that it is more probable that a less complex system / object / being / thing - would exist from nothing, rather than something more complex?

I would say its impossible not more probable that nothingness could ever create anything. The Gap from zero to 1 is infinite big. There is not even a physical connection between zero and 1.

God is the decimal number that is closest to zero. And that decimal is infinite big and infinite small. You will never ever find even a probable decimal number that is close to or even connected to zero. Because zero or nothingness cant create anything or cause anything. Nothingness is infinite. But numbers are infinite to. The beginning starts where the infinite negative number and infinite positive number separate from the one. That would = a creation of energy and matter.
In other words that could be pressure compared to no pressure which is nothingness.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by Unsane


i am not native english speaking.
And Logic has something wacko about it

Everything are beliefs in this world,
individually or by majority, true or not true,
it is belief, beliefsystems.
We believe something to be true, how do we know ?
by proof ? why does that proof work ? because we believe it,
true or not true is also belief.
not energy but belief is the building block,
or that what we can know.

Truth is an absolute, right or not ?
If you would say no, because you assume two opposite truths can exsist,
then honesty demands you to see them as coming together, as allowed,
in one absolute truth.

That absolute truth on it's highest level, is not dependant of another truth,
because then that other truth gets included in the absolute.
That absolute truth is everything as one, because it is not subject
to something higher, it is free, or it is not absolute truth.
That truth is one and is alive.

Because it is one, and has to be truth, it can't be the untruths.
But
untruths are not allowed to exsist outside the truth, or
truth is divided and not absolute.
So Truth as One needs the lies to be included, not excluded,
to let them cancel out themselves.
Logic kills logic (the devil falls from the heavens)
in this world.

How ?
By beliefsystems believing lies.
Those lies kills the previous lies, include them, to cancel them out.

Humans as reflecting their way home,
and in the right time believing that what needs tobe believed,
to cancel it out as lie, included in truth.

Repenting and forgiving
the gospel.

God is logic.
Logic that is free.

reply to post by Saurus


Your argument is fallible. A bucket is LESS complex than a fully evolved human being, not more. (A human being did not just 'appear', life evolved.)

Its good that you (sort of) agree with me about the complexity argument.

I hope others will see the logic too.

Keep questioning!

reply to post by Unsane


How would you explain then that a human is more likely to form from nothing than a bucket?

Originally posted by pieman
so why haven't they managed it?

Test tube babies, stem cells and including the ability to manipulate the genes to create a "designer baby" (as the term used in the UK)

It is amazing the advance in scientific understanding when religious fundamentalists are prevented from persecuting intellectual discussion.

reply to post by Unsane


OK...

If evolution is a process which allows more complex forms (humans) to evolve rather than less complex ones (buckets), then it is equally probable that there exists some process that allows a more complex being than humans (God) to form rather than humans.

[edit on 21/9/2009 by Saurus]

reply to post by reasonable


What choice?

You mean denying us free will at first and forcing us to live in a totalitarian regime in the Garden of Eden (which never existed)

Originally posted by pepsi78

And yet, while physics tells us that life is almost absolutely improbable/impossible, it exists. Can we really rely on probabilities?

Genuine random effects are when you drop a round ball, a cat opens the window by pushing against it, the strong wind outside blows into the house making the ball change it's predefined trajectory established by the microscopic sharp edges on the flat floor.

That does not define a random event as your disregarding the cause and effects that lead to the wind blowing the ball off the predetermined path of there being no wind.

You can't disregard a cause and label it a random event and then use that to determine the validity of a man made deity. It just doesn't work that way no matter how much we wish it so.

If chance were a true objective quality of the universe, then nothing would have to have a cause forming the out come's of its effect. Meaning the ball could change it's predefined course without the need of the wind blowing it off course and without following the laws of physics that determine the exact course it should take based on the point of contact.

Since every effect requires a cause, neither chance nor probability can exist. To say it does exist is to utterly disregard all extant causes leading to their effects.

Originally posted by Saurus
reply to post by Unsane

 

OK...

If evolution is a process which allows more complex forms (humans) to evolve rather than less complex ones (buckets), then it is equally probable that there exists a process that allows a more complex being than humans to form rather than humans.

[edit on 21/9/2009 by Saurus]

Absolutely, that's what evolution is all about. Homo Sapiens evolved from things like Homo Erectus, and on down the evolution chain, so it is possible to evolve again (in the next 100 thousand or a million years)

Yes!
Though I seriously doubt He/They walk around iwearing comfy sandals, a long white robe, has/have long white hair and sport a cool lookin' white bushy beard.
Think about it, even something as random as a fractal always has a strong element of design.

reply to post by ineverknew


I was at one of my employers house one day and he invited me to lunch, as he prayed over his McChicken I did not. Later back at the house he asked me my beliefs on God.
I told him that I had read the Bible and that Jesus stated that "We (Ye) are Gods." and that is what I believed. That man is God."
My employer stated "yes but with a little g".
I wanted to tell him there was no such thing as a capital or little letters when it was written. and that my statement still stands. "WE ARE GODS,
that we create and/or destroy everything."
But I didn't, a month later I was laid off.

reply to post by ineverknew


First, to clarify my position, I'm a nonreligious gnostic.

Yes, there is a 'god'. It isn't the anthropomorphized thing that mainstream religion teaches. It doesn't exists 'here', it isn't anyting like us, and we are nothing like it. I doubt that it created this universe, I'm positive that it either exists in it's own pocket universe or another dimension entirely, I doubt that it created humans.

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by ineverknew

 

First, to clarify my position, I'm a nonreligious gnostic.

Yes, there is a 'god'. It isn't the anthropomorphized thing that mainstream religion teaches. It doesn't exists 'here', it isn't anyting like us, and we are nothing like it. I doubt that it created this universe, I'm positive that it either exists in it's own pocket universe or another dimension entirely, I doubt that it created humans.

So what is your definition of God, exactly?

That does not define a random event as your disregarding the cause and effects that lead to the wind blowing the ball off the predetermined path of there being no wind.

You can't disregard a cause and label it a random event and then use that to determine the validity of a man made deity. It just doesn't work that way no matter how much we wish it so.

I stand by my statement. Established direction of the objects may be altered by un unknown singularity causing the object to go in an unpredictable way.

I'm not disregarding the cause. Whatever has a mind of it's own may alter events and may alter objects that come in it's way. Things that bounce may bounce in a predictable way, once there is interaction but not in a direct way with an element that is not predefined then random takes over. This caused the wind to blow and move the object, but the wind was not the cause, the cause was an unpredictable element making the wind change the path of the object. In the end it was not the animal who moved the object, but at the same time it was in an indirect way.

If the window were to be open from the start or closed we would know the direction of the object, but since you do not know if it will be open or not because something may open it then you got a random effect, a random effect with two options, it's either a or b.

Everything is predictable, motion,direction, everything can be calculated
until the unpredictable steps in. It can either be a creature , god, a black hole and so on, who knows what is out there in the universe, what shapes things and makes them move and then things get a mind of their own sort of speak. It's why life is so special. To me evolution is BS, evolution was calculated from the begining, a ploted course if you want to get us here where we are today. For me all of this is enought to try and accept that there is something bigger than us, a powerful force on a global scale that will open and close the window whenever it wants.

Now on a lower plain of existance there are alot of things that can create chances, one of those things are mistakes.





[edit on 21-9-2009 by pepsi78]