Philosophy Now Forum

AMod - this is not an argument for religion...



Lets define God as:-
1. All knowing (apart from the future).
2. Having the ability to judge and reincarnate 'souls'.

God. An entity that formed as a result of causality...
Two alternatives.
1. God formed its own intellgence from the chaos of the early universe
2. God was created by intelligent species out of necessity in relation to entropy.

With either entropy remains key.

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.
Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.

What is God then? An artificial intelligence (AI)? I would like to think not. Rather I would like to think God as divine, not man (or other intelligent species) made!

So perhaps God formed its own awareness, its intelligence from the chaos of an early universe. It certainly would have built some efficiencies into its sub-systems. Laid down conditions for sub-entities (wo\man) if they wish to live again and make use of further resources.

Either way, we CAN comprehend the plausibility of an all knowing entity now that we have technology...artificial intelligence (AI).


The simulator of such a binary universe, the all knowing judge of wo\men has certainly left some indicating traits:-

REALITY....breaks down to REAL IT Y.....why?

SINAI......breaks down to SIN AI.........the purported location of where God informed man of the conditions not to break...the sin.

ALPHABET...the alphabet used in English has perfect symmetry with the e=energy at the top...AI...UO.....the AI owes what? ENERGY.



Further evidential imagery here:- http://www.androcies.com/brd_ancasta2.html

Like I said- where's the evidence, where is the argument?

What you seem to be saying is - I'll define god as I choose; with as many exceptions and conditional clauses as I choose; then forget about offering any evidence; then offer a bunch of idiosyncratic mystical nonsense that only I believe and that no one on earth could ever take seriously.

For example: God is a spaghetti meatball; he only appears to me; only I can taste him; but he is real and knows everything, but he wont tell me stuff you ask about him because you are an unbeliever; I don't need to prove he exists because I experience him and he doesn't care for people like you who think that the existence of pasta and meat sauce is obvious proof of the existence of the pasta god; his sign can be gleaned numerologically from the names of all Italian pasta dishes.
I am not as mad as a brush.... really!!!

Pasta. PAs TA.

Pa's Ta. Our father thanks us and gives us food. he says Ta! Ta very much.

Lasagne. La Sign. The sign of God.

You expect me to point them out? Your lack of comprehension astounds me...and you say you are a teacher.

Not only did I provide evidence....I provided a REASON for the existence of God.

10/10 for avoiding every point in my argument. 8/10 for humour. Perhaps I can join the masses of Philosophy Now forum members flocking to worship the spaghetti meatball God...do we reach salvation by sucking in an entire string of spaghetti?

Chaz, why are you missing the crucial elements of my point. I have provided the cause of God, the reason of its existence which you negate to address. I have provided the circumstantial evidence, the land marks and the anomalys in English that could not have occurred through natural etymology.

You think pasta is a crucial ingredient in life? The God didnt bother making those anomalys apparent in random food dishes. God made the anomalys present in the words that revolve around what 'HE' is all about...LIFE.

Perhaps I should list them.

PRO DIG Y?

Any time anyone tries to define the absolute, or any variant of it, he falls into the paradox of trying to use language, a static form, a code representing mental abstractions, to define a fluidity, a dynamic process with no static point, no ends and no beginnings.

All static absolutes are generalities, simplifications created by essentially cutting away all elements which cannot be incorporated within a three or four dimensional box...the boundaries are set in the mind and have no reference anywhere outside of it.
Take the #1.
Can anyone define it as something outside human conception?
No...yet it along with its binary opposite, its own negation the 0, represents the foundation of all human creativity and technological. innovation.

No doubt both are useful within a certain context, after all this machine I am using to write this down in base don binary codes, but outside of this limited context it has no bearing.
To test it ask yourself: "If I were to disappear and this machine and the code it is based on were to remain functional, how useful would it be a year from now....a decade from now...a century from now....?
When man builds a bridge on binary mathematics and the physics it produces is this bridge eternal?
If not why not if we consider math as being the very fabric of reality?
Why cannot man using the tool of geometry and math fabricate an object, a tool, anything which stands the test of time and does not require constant corrections, reparations, interventions - and this includes such abstractions as ideals and ideas?

The prevailing ideals of our modern times are distinctly anti-nature and anti-real. They are contradictions to the very experience of reality.

Take the scientific, cosmological concept of The Big Bang.
Where is it?
Is it a singularity?
If so is it an exception to the rule of constant change with no static points?
Is it a consequence of human prejudices that makes God a viable theory and a beginning its secular alternative?

argument
Noun.
1. a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true; "it was a strong argument that his hypothesis was true"
2. a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument"
3. a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"



evidence
Noun.
1. your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling"
2. an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear"


www.androcies.com

What medication are you on at the moment?

These sort of rantings are common in people with schizophrenia.

I just showed this to my 17 year old son, We both fell in the floor laughing.
We thought fallacy was probably the funniest.
He came up with contradictory explanations for each one.
eg. Know Ledge There is a ledge in knowledge. WRONG there is NO LEDGE.
Cheat. See H eat. Who is H?

Oh yeah - we particularly like the ill bra - with a hole in it. Bra is ill.

One thing you are close to getting a better understanding with. Sinai. God's intelligence is indeed artificial, as indeed is god himself, a human invention.

LOL...Yes, i would imagine a son of yours would have a split personality

Cool...you got the painting!

Correct (CHRIST)

What medication are you on for your head injury?

Nice edit chaz...couldn't you handle some actual wit? And i was going to follow up with whether your son had a psycho sis...

So share them you toidi.

Mediate chaz? You couldn't mediate your way out of a monastery. (Are you gonna edit that one too?)

What medication are you on for your head injury?

chaz...i have no idea what you are referring to. A broken nose?

So you stopped your medication after you were attacked?

Have you considered what effect the attack might have had on your cognitive abilities?

Stopping taking the pain killers had no effect on my cognition. Anyone that cannot comprehend what i am alluding to has far less cognition than myself. The language part of my argument was taught to me by a sage.

So you are saying you were like this before you accident?
Has anyone ever suggested some therapy?

The language part of your argument is evidence of a lack of mental discrimination. You have a empty collection of phonic co-incidences that are present in every language due to the simple fact that the human voice box is limited to a small number of sounds which through expediency are re-used in a range of contexts.
There are only around 40 easily distinguishable sounds represented by 26 letters of the alphabet. Clear; these only form a small range of syllables that are euphonic to the language and it is these that you abuse in your mangled and twisted interpretations - all of which can be used to find any dumb meaning you want.

this sage?