God\'God's existence is probable

[Gary Childress]

There is no clash between my knowing that God\'God' exists, and scientific inquiry.

Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

Stop making out that science contradicts the validity of God\'God's existence.

God was "created" by us? God as "A.I."? Maybe I'm just not following but this sounds like some hokey New Age nonsense to me, not the sort of god which people ought to worship as their "maker" or whatever. And even if science does not "contradict" that a being called "God" exists, it does not necessarily follow from that that God must therefore exist.

Short answer, I don't know if there's a God or not. I don't know what happens beyond this world we all seem to be living in. However, if you want to start a cult or something, I suppose no one should forcibly stop you. I'm not buying into it, though.

[attofishpi]

I think you have the wrong misconception with the term 'metaphysics.'

Do you not mean, I simply have a misconception with the term 'metaphysics', or are you happy with me having some other misconception with the term 'metaphysics'?

Physics is a scientific subject thus imperatively empirical.
What is beyond normal physics is speculative physics which is still empirically possible.
Now, the term 'metaphysics' is meta-physics, i.e. beyond physics.

Wrong.
Meta means 'about the thing itself'. Eg, in IT, metadata is futher information about the 'data'.
Metaphysics is concerned philosophically about 'physics'.
To think that 'meta'-physics, means beyond physics is to imply the very term 'metaphysics' is an irrational term at the outset, since NOTHING is beyond physics.

The idea of God is never scientific nor empirically possible.

Oh. You mean that bearded man in the sky you mentioned earlier that created everything?

Btw, you totally ignored my point, the idea of God is driven by one's psychology. When a theist can handle those theistic related psychological impulses maturedly, s/he will be weaned off the idea of God and be freed from its baggage.

Except that I as an individual have be made aware of God\'Gods' existence - over a 20 year period of direct and personal evidence.
As I am fully aware that there is a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality, I do believe that one day, and likely via a physicist, this 'God' will be empirically proven to exist.

Note many mad people, those with brain damage, taken drugs/hallucinations, etc. also have direct and personal experiences of God.

Really? Does that not mean they have hallucinated something?
I would think it does, I think it means, they have an irrational view of things, wouldn't you?

How do you know, your direct experience of God has nothing to do some issues in your brain or the general psychological impulses of the existential crisis?

Because I am more rational than you.

Getting back on track as per my OP:-
Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

Do provide YOUR counter argument to the point 2. A.I. 'God' resulting from the progression of entropy.

I find you argument above nonsensical, thus I presented my generalized argument, i.e. you cannot equivocate the non-empirical metaphysics with empirical Science.

Rephrasing your point 2;
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us [humans], created in order for us [humans] to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

You did not define 'God' as intended in your argument.
God is generally taken to be the intelligent creator of the whole universe.

Why is that? I don't buy bull, but even in Genesis there is no mention of creation of the entire universe. In fact, it seems more of a creation of our reality.

How can this fit in with your ridiculous point 2?

In neither:-
Point 1. Divine God
Point 2. A.I. 'God'

...did I state that it created the universe.

You imply God was created by humans, and this human created God who created the universe, humans and an efficient reality AI.
You stated,
"Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually."
Where is your detailed argument for this?

It is rather simple. Intelligent species require ever increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. Eventually as entropy increases, useful resources diminish, requiring said intelligence's to exist far more efficiently. It is likely they would prefer to exist within a reality that they are accustomed to, hence an Artificial Intelligence would project reality to the consciousness's of individuals once interfaced to the system. Their material bodies would be an illusion, and no longer requiring to draw energy from the original system.
This A.I. 'God' would have set rules, as to those born into the system, rules that govern whether they get the right to reincarnate or not. Perhaps 10 commandments. Those within the system would be left in GREAT DOUBT, as to its existence, since energy should only be provided, to those of higher moral fibre, indeed, a self realised higher moral fibre...those that are indeed WISE.

[attofishpi]

However, if you want to start a cult or something, I suppose no one should forcibly stop you. I'm not buying into it, though.

Do you really think I want a cult, be surrounded by idiots that can't think for themselves!? No thanks, but talking of cults and gullible people - you are definitely from the US!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think you have the wrong misconception with the term 'metaphysics.'

Do you not mean, I simply have a misconception with the term 'metaphysics', or are you happy with me having some other misconception with the term 'metaphysics'?

Physics is a scientific subject thus imperatively empirical.
What is beyond normal physics is speculative physics which is still empirically possible.
Now, the term 'metaphysics' is meta-physics, i.e. beyond physics.

Wrong.
Meta means 'about the thing itself'. Eg, in IT, metadata is futher information about the 'data'.
Metaphysics is concerned philosophically about 'physics'.
To think that 'meta'-physics, means beyond physics is to imply the very term 'metaphysics' is an irrational term at the outset, since NOTHING is beyond physics.

Yes, you have the wrong misconception of the term 'metaphysics' in the philosophical context, note;

Nonetheless, Aristotle's Metaphysics enunciates considerations of natures above physical realities, which one can examine through this particular part of philosophy, e.g., the existence of God.
The use of the prefix was later extended to other contexts based on the understanding of metaphysics to mean "the science of what is beyond the physical".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta#Epistemology

What is 'physical' within Physics is whatever that comes within its ambit.
What is metaphysics is outside the ambit of Physics.
Thus what is metaphysical relate to anything that is beyond Physics

The idea of God is never scientific nor empirically possible.

Oh. You mean that bearded man in the sky you mentioned earlier that created everything?

There is a nuance with the term 'idea' of God. 'Idea' in this context is never empirical.
The 'bearded man in the sky' is actually scientifically and empirically possible. The question is just bring the empirical evidence to justify its existence and what it is capable of. However note any empirical God even if proven is an inferior god no theists will accept if challenged.

Except that I as an individual have be made aware of God\'Gods' existence - over a 20 year period of direct and personal evidence.
As I am fully aware that there is a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality, I do believe that one day, and likely via a physicist, this 'God' will be empirically proven to exist.

Note many mad people, those with brain damage, taken drugs/hallucinations, etc. also have direct and personal experiences of God.

Really? Does that not mean they have hallucinated something?
I would think it does, I think it means, they have an irrational view of things, wouldn't you?

Note this thread;

• Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

The above implied all humans hallucinate their conscious reality.
Therefore reality is a continuum of hallucination [99% to 1%].
Normal reality is 1-5% hallucination, i.e. which can be justified to be true, thus rational.
Those [mad, mystics,prophets etc] who experienced God directly may have 80% hallucination of a deity, thus irrational.
Those who believe these irrational prophets are believing in an 80% hallucination as real and thus the believers are also irrational.

How do you know, your direct experience of God has nothing to do some issues in your brain or the general psychological impulses of the existential crisis?

Because I am more rational than you.

Point is you are being deceived by your brain in believing an illusion and you do not realize it.
I was once a pantheist, i.e. deceived by my mind/brain in believing God is real. But I am now more rational in understanding how my brain/mind works in deceiving me then. I made the rational move then to wean myself off theism.

How can you claim to be rational when you cannot even prove God exists as real?
Note the default is theists believe God based on faith, i.e. without proofs and reason, thus never on a rational basis.

Getting back on track as per my OP:-
Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

Do provide YOUR counter argument to the point 2. A.I. 'God' resulting from the progression of entropy.

I find you argument above nonsensical, thus I presented my generalized argument, i.e. you cannot equivocate the non-empirical metaphysics with empirical Science.

Rephrasing your point 2;
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us [humans], created in order for us [humans] to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

You did not define 'God' as intended in your argument.
God is generally taken to be the intelligent creator of the whole universe.

Why is that? I don't buy bull, but even in Genesis there is no mention of creation of the entire universe. In fact, it seems more of a creation of our reality.

How can this fit in with your ridiculous point 2?

In neither:-
Point 1. Divine God
Point 2. A.I. 'God'

...did I state that it created the universe.

If your God did not create the universe, then, within your perspective, who created the universe.
If to you, there is another entity that created God, then your 'God' is a useless god not worthy of consideration.

You imply God was created by humans, and this human created God who created the universe, humans and an efficient reality AI.
You stated,
"Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually."
Where is your detailed argument for this?

It is rather simple.
Intelligent species require ever increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle.
Eventually as entropy increases, useful resources diminish, requiring said intelligence's to exist far more efficiently.
It is likely they would prefer to exist within a reality that they are accustomed to, hence an Artificial Intelligence would project reality to the consciousness's of individuals once interfaced to the system.
Their material bodies would be an illusion, and no longer requiring to draw energy from the original system.

This A.I. 'God' would have set rules, as to those born into the system, rules that govern whether they get the right to reincarnate or not.
Perhaps 10 commandments.
Those within the system would be left in GREAT DOUBT, as to its existence, since energy should only be provided, to those of higher moral fibre, indeed, a self realised higher moral fibre...those that are indeed WISE.

You are making too many assumptions above due to pessimism and ignorance of the human potential.
When humans are able to explore the galaxies, they would be able to get additional resources.
Generally the threat to the human species will not a resource constraint and limitation.

The fatal threat to the human species is likely to be the following;

• -a large enough rogue meteor appearing suddenly and heading onto to Earth to make the human species extinct.
  -the Earth eventually moving towards the center of its orbit, i.e. the Sun.
  -someone pressing the red button - most likely SOME Muslims.

You can sent your above argument from Entropy into the recycle bin to be trashed.

[attofishpi]

Physics is a scientific subject thus imperatively empirical.
What is beyond normal physics is speculative physics which is still empirically possible.
Now, the term 'metaphysics' is meta-physics, i.e. beyond physics.

Wrong.
Meta means 'about the thing itself'. Eg, in IT, metadata is futher information about the 'data'.
Metaphysics is concerned philosophically about 'physics'.
To think that 'meta'-physics, means beyond physics is to imply the very term 'metaphysics' is an irrational term at the outset, since NOTHING is beyond physics.

Yes, you have the wrong misconception of the term 'metaphysics' in the philosophical context, note;
Nonetheless, Aristotle's Metaphysics enunciates considerations of natures above physical realities, which one can examine through this particular part of philosophy, e.g., the existence of God.
The use of the prefix was later extended to other contexts based on the understanding of metaphysics to mean "the science of what is beyond the physical".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta#Epistemology
What is 'physical' within Physics is whatever that comes within its ambit.
What is metaphysics is outside the ambit of Physics.
Thus what is metaphysical relate to anything that is beyond Physics

Your quote from WIKI details a strong argument to the contrary prior to the 'nonetheless'.

Nonetheless, I am ok with YOUR Aristotle account of Metaphysics. My comprehension of this 3rd party entity referred to as 'God' is indeed beyond our physical comprehension. Which does sadden me, since I know it exists, I was hoping a phycisist may one day empirically prove it.
However, since physical reality at its most way beyond sub-atomically small finite scale - is binary - where either there is an event or there is not an event is the domain from which this 3rd party intelligence constructs our reality, sure maybe it IS beyond our physical examination.

The idea of God is never scientific nor empirically possible.

Oh. You mean that bearded man in the sky you mentioned earlier that created everything?

There is a nuance with the term 'idea' of God. 'Idea' in this context is never empirical.
The 'bearded man in the sky' is actually scientifically and empirically possible.

Well of course it is dipshit...Armstrong could have grown a beard, but did he create everything?

How do you know, your direct experience of God has nothing to do some issues in your brain or the general psychological impulses of the existential crisis?

Because I am more rational than you.

Point is you are being deceived by your brain in believing an illusion and you do not realize it.
I was once a pantheist, i.e. deceived by my mind/brain in believing God is real. But I am now more rational in understanding how my brain/mind works in deceiving me then. I made the rational move then to wean myself off theism.

What's the point of Pantheism?
If you were a Panentheist then perhaps you could comprehend that God is personable and knowable. The very fact that this 3rd party intelligence has not made itself aware to you, seems has turned you into a militant atheist.

How can you claim to be rational when you cannot even prove God exists as real?

You saw the reasoning I gave for an entity dealing with entropy, of course it does not want to be known, ergo, cannot be proved to exist. Its re-quoted further down.

God is generally taken to be the intelligent creator of the whole universe.

Why is that? I don't buy bull, but even in Genesis there is no mention of creation of the entire universe. In fact, it seems more of a creation of our reality.

How can this fit in with your ridiculous point 2?

In neither:-
Point 1. Divine God
Point 2. A.I. 'God'

...did I state that it created the universe.

If your God did not create the universe, then, within your perspective, who created the universe.

Nobody!! Just the same as your atheist proposal, except mine has a rational current or future point of time perspective!

You imply God was created by humans, and this human created God who created the universe, humans and an efficient reality AI.

No. No. No. Again No. I never stated ANY intelligence CREATED the universe.

You stated,
"Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually."
Where is your detailed argument for this?

It is rather simple.
Intelligent species require ever increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle.
Eventually as entropy increases, useful resources diminish, requiring said intelligence's to exist far more efficiently.
It is likely they would prefer to exist within a reality that they are accustomed to, hence an Artificial Intelligence would project reality to the consciousness's of individuals once interfaced to the system.
Their material bodies would be an illusion, and no longer requiring to draw energy from the original system.

This A.I. 'God' would have set rules, as to those born into the system, rules that govern whether they get the right to reincarnate or not.
Perhaps 10 commandments.
Those within the system would be left in GREAT DOUBT, as to its existence, since energy should only be provided, to those of higher moral fibre, indeed, a self realised higher moral fibre...those that are indeed WISE.

You are making too many assumptions above due to pessimism and ignorance of the human potential.
When humans are able to explore the galaxies, they would be able to get additional resources.

You think billions, perhaps trillions of people are going to be exploring galaxies?
I'll let you in on a little secret. If they do, they are going to be transported in THE most efficient way possible. That's right, as PURE consciousness living in a virtual A.I. reality. 'God'.

Generally the threat to the human species will not a resource constraint and limitation.

Apart from the threat to Earth, as you suggest below, in a meteor strike, YES, resources will be really really important to those that remain Earth laden - in other words - the VAST majority (billions\trillions).

The fatal threat to the human species is likely to be the following;

• -a large enough rogue meteor appearing suddenly and heading onto to Earth to make the human species extinct.
  -the Earth eventually moving towards the center of its orbit, i.e. the Sun.
  -someone pressing the red button - most likely SOME Muslims.

How in your understanding of physics is the Earth going to move towards the Sun?
And how have you overlooked the Sun becoming a Red Giant?

You can sent your above argument from Entropy into the recycle bin to be trashed.

Sure, I will, once you present a coherent and rational argument.

[Logik]

Metaphysics. A silly name for the language used to conceptualise and describe physics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wrong.
Meta means 'about the thing itself'. Eg, in IT, metadata is futher information about the 'data'.
Metaphysics is concerned philosophically about 'physics'.
To think that 'meta'-physics, means beyond physics is to imply the very term 'metaphysics' is an irrational term at the outset, since NOTHING is beyond physics.

Yes, you have the wrong misconception of the term 'metaphysics' in the philosophical context, note;
Nonetheless, Aristotle's Metaphysics enunciates considerations of natures above physical realities, which one can examine through this particular part of philosophy, e.g., the existence of God.
The use of the prefix was later extended to other contexts based on the understanding of metaphysics to mean "the science of what is beyond the physical".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta#Epistemology
What is 'physical' within Physics is whatever that comes within its ambit.
What is metaphysics is outside the ambit of Physics.
Thus what is metaphysical relate to anything that is beyond Physics

Your quote from WIKI details a strong argument to the contrary prior to the 'nonetheless'.

Nonetheless, I am ok with YOUR Aristotle account of Metaphysics.
My comprehension of this 3rd party entity referred to as 'God' is indeed beyond our physical comprehension. Which does sadden me, since I know it exists, I was hoping a phycisist may one day empirically prove it.
However, since physical reality at its most way beyond sub-atomically small finite scale - is binary - where either there is an event or there is not an event is the domain from which this 3rd party intelligence constructs our reality, sure maybe it IS beyond our physical examination.

What was 'metaphysics' prior to 'nonetheless' was not central to philosophy.
As I have demonstrated there is no hope for your non-empirical 3rd party intelligence to be discovered by Physics.

The root cause of your 'hoping' is actually an internal psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis cause by "zombie parasites."
This is the same psychological impulse that drive the Abrahamic theists to seek a God who can promise them an eternal life in heaven with some hoping for 72 virgins, except yours is of a much milder degrees.

If you can deal directly with this internal psychological issue you will have freedom and free from 'hoping for the impossible' and the disappointments that come with it, especially when you face critiques of your hopes.

Oh. You mean that bearded man in the sky you mentioned earlier that created everything?

There is a nuance with the term 'idea' of God. 'Idea' in this context is never empirical.
The 'bearded man in the sky' is actually scientifically and empirically possible.

Well of course it is dipshit...Armstrong could have grown a beard, but did he create everything?

Yes, it is shit. Once the majority of theists believed God was that 'bearded man with great power in the sky.' When Science opened up the Universes, theists has to shift to transcendental creator or a 3rd party intelligence like yours.
As I had argued above, the idea of God emerged from humans' existential psychology.

Because I am more rational than you.

Point is you are being deceived by your brain in believing an illusion and you do not realize it.
I was once a pantheist, i.e. deceived by my mind/brain in believing God is real. But I am now more rational in understanding how my brain/mind works in deceiving me then. I made the rational move then to wean myself off theism.

What's the point of Pantheism?
If you were a Panentheist then perhaps you could comprehend that God is personable and knowable. The very fact that this 3rd party intelligence has not made itself aware to you, seems has turned you into a militant atheist.

Pantheism and Panentheism are necessary impulses of merely clinging to remnants of the psychological impulses compelled by the existential crisis and "zombie parasites." If the Abrahamic theists has 90% of such compulsion, then the pantheist would have 10%. So to the pantheist, 10% of clinging to an idea of God is necessary to provide some psychological comfort and security.
When I managed to wean* myself off theism completely, I am 'not-a-theist' and if free from all the psychological bondage of being a 'theist.'
* by replacing with fool proofs alternative to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

You can sent your above argument from Entropy into the recycle bin to be trashed.

Sure, I will, once you present a coherent and rational argument.

Don't waste your time.
Instead try and deal with the psychological drives that is compelling you to cling to an illusory thing. To do so you will have to rewire your brain for the better. For a good start, I [not a Buddhist] would recommend to you Buddhism-proper not religious-based-Buddhism.

[attofishpi]

You can sent your above argument from Entropy into the recycle bin to be trashed.

Sure, I will, once you present a coherent and rational argument.

Don't waste your time.

Well, I already did, so yeah, you are a waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sure, I will, once you present a coherent and rational argument.

Don't waste your time.

Well, I already did, so yeah, you are a waste of time.

You are stuck in a rut, note the new vista I introduced or search for a new perspective yourself.