Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventually..

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by chaz wyman »

attofishpi wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:
attofishpi wrote:... The dilema i have is that i have been a witness to 'miracles'...don't bother to quiz me on that. So here i am, left to ponder the true nature of reality, the point of this particular thread is that i can attack it from what i see as a logical, scientific perspective. The only other way i can comprehend this God is to suggest that it formed logic (and intelligence) from the chaos of the early universe.
Now you are confusing me attofishpi,
As first you say that this 'god' of yours will be invented by us but now you are saying its already here? What do you mean?

Have you thought that you should apply this logical and scientific perspective to these miracles to resolve your dilema? As science tends to say they are just so far unexplained events. I note you scare-quote these miracles so you don't think them produced by any 'god' and as such are not miracles in that sense, so why the need to comprehend a 'God'?
I have known of the idea of a technological singularity for many years.

YES GOD IS ALREADY HERE. What i am trying to ascertain is WHAT IS GOD?

As obviously i see no conflict in the existence of GOD with SCIENTIFIC principles.

HA! I wondered how long it would take for you to come out of the closet and show your true colours.
You've been hiding in the wardrobe and no you emerge with a gingham dress, white stockings, your hair tied in a pony tails with a Bible under your arm.
And now there is no surprise why it is you have asserted the inconceivable - because the inconceivable is part of your every day diet of thinking.
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by Typist »

chaz wyman wrote: HA! I wondered how long it would take for you to come out of the closet and show your true colours.
You've been hiding in the wardrobe and no you emerge with a gingham dress, white stockings, your hair tied in a pony tails with a Bible under your arm.
And now there is no surprise why it is you have asserted the inconceivable - because the inconceivable is part of your every day diet of thinking.
You heard him! YOU ARE BUNKUM!!!
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by Arising_uk »

Typist wrote:You heard him! YOU ARE BUNKUM!!!
More 'aphilosophy'. :roll:
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by Arising_uk »

attofishpi wrote:When placing ROtN into WIKIp it appeared to direct me to a TS definition. I admit not paying much attention to it. Not sure what you are digging at with respect to these subjects.
I just wanted to know if you were an upload kinda guy or a bodily enhancement kinda guy.
Human Enhancement is occurring already, and as wo\man gets to grips with DNA modification, who knows what the world will look like.
Its been occurring since we learned to think, hence glasses.

You say "who knows what the world will look like" but your argument is exactly about doing this?
Correct. I was attemping not to polute the debate, and get some rational thought as to how an entity may come into existence with the ability to...er...morph matter for example.
What does "morph matter" mean in this case? As we 'morph' matter every day.
Ha ha...What you fail to understand is that all 'sub' systems have their dimensions under complete subordination to the upper system. Try and take on God. Fat fucking chance. It nose your every next move.
Since I don't think what you talk about exists in the sense you mean I have no need to 'take on' anything.

Your thoughts are a bit of a muddle as your post proposes that a 'god' will "eventually" occur but now you are saying this event has already happened, so what 'god' are you talking about?
What is GOD. Is it man made, that is, created by multiple intelligences out of necessity. Or, did it form logic, intelligence on its own from the chaos of the early universe? ...
If you mean did Humans make 'god' up to explain things they couldn't explain at the time, then yes, it is man-made.

Nothing forms logic, its inherent in their being things and states of affairs. But recognising that does take 'intelligence' and talking about it takes symbols.
In the latter case. I take every criticism and regret of life back and shed tears for a suffering far more reaching than the pain of Christ.
No idea what you are talking about here?
snt that what humans do, rationalise?
Yes and the idea of 'god' is such a rationalization but why do you need to have a 'scientific' explanation?
No.
Not very 'scientific' then.
Perhaps i doubt whether it deserves my respect.
Would it care?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by attofishpi »

Arising_uk wrote:What does "morph matter" mean in this case? As we 'morph' matter every day.
Why do i have to reiterate to atheists...tendency to derail perhaps? How about i repeat the all time classic...turning water to wine?
Arising_uk wrote:Since I don't think what you talk about exists in the sense you mean I have no need to 'take on' anything.
So why did you question that this new 'evolved' 'God' would have a conflict with the 'supreme' God?
Arising_uk wrote:If you mean did Humans make 'god' up to explain things they couldn't explain at the time, then yes, it is man-made.
Again, another derail. You know exactly the context within this entire thread i am arguing that a 'God' will exist.
Arising_uk wrote:Nothing forms logic, its inherent in their being things and states of affairs. But recognising that does take 'intelligence' and talking about it takes symbols.
'Nothing forms logic'...'Inherent'? If i write a pc virus it will improve its own logic by analysis of its environment (state of affairs) in an attempt to perpetuate itself. I have conditioned it initially, and its up to its predefined condition set to allow itself to improve under the duress of its environment. Fine. But nothing is inherent from the chaos of the early universe. Therein i make a bold statement in relation to an entity suffering to form logic. Is it too far fetched to conceive of an entity that begins a conscious awareness from the primordial soup of the early universe, rather than from the evolution of life?
Arising_uk wrote:Yes and the idea of 'god' is such a rationalization but why do you need to have a 'scientific' explanation?
You misquoted me here. Of course God requires a rational scientific explanation. This God requires certain rules to be followed for continuation of ones own self...entropy is very <<<mean>>>
Arising_uk wrote:Would it care?
If we dont respect it? Unfortunately it does.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by Arising_uk »

attofishpi wrote:Why do i have to reiterate to atheists...tendency to derail perhaps? How about i repeat the all time classic...turning water to wine?
You have proof of this event? Although we do this all the time but we have to add grapes. Why is it not a miracle that we can all turn wine into urine?
So why did you question that this new 'evolved' 'God' would have a conflict with the 'supreme' God?
Because you first postulated that a 'god' would evolve and then said there was already a 'god' and I assumed that the original would not much like the competition, not that I think there is one.
Again, another derail. You know exactly the context within this entire thread i am arguing that a 'God' will exist.
And I replied that I see it not impossible that humans could create a technology that some may worship, but would it be the same as this 'god' that you already believe in?
Nothing forms logic'...'Inherent'? If i write a pc virus it will improve its own logic by analysis of its environment (state of affairs) in an attempt to perpetuate itself. I have conditioned it initially, and its up to its predefined condition set to allow itself to improve under the duress of its environment. Fine. But nothing is inherent from the chaos of the early universe. Therein i make a bold statement in relation to an entity suffering to form logic. Is it too far fetched to conceive of an entity that begins a conscious awareness from the primordial soup of the early universe, rather than from the evolution of life?
You'd have to explain what you mean by "conscious awareness" for me to think about what you say.

You misunderstand what logic is, logic is relationship, if there is one object in a state of affair then there is monadic logic, i.e it can be, it can not be, it can either be or not be, it cannot both be and not be, in formal symbolic logic, P, ¬P, P v ¬P, ¬(P ^ ¬P). If there are two objects you get dyadic logic, three - triadic logic, etc. Handily we don't need the triadic and up logics as all their relationships can be expressed in dyadic logic. These are known as the Propositional logics and they closely express the language of propositions and argument in language. The next logics are called the Quantificational and Predicate logics, there are more, but they all have Propositional Logic as their base.

I will be mightly impressed if you can write a virus that re-writes its own logic by analysis of its environment. Could you post the code please.(no need if you just mean that it rewrites its filename or extension or copys itself elsewhere, as this is not rewriting its logic but obeying its logic).
You misquoted me here. Of course God requires a rational scientific explanation. This God requires certain rules to be followed for continuation of ones own self...entropy is very <<<mean>>>
Why does this 'god' require a 'rational scientific explanation'?(ignoring that science is not seeking such a thing).

Why not that this 'god' of yours goes the same way as we do when the universe reaches equilibrium of 'energy' across space.

This 'god' does have certain rules to follow, the rules of Logic.
If we dont respect it? Unfortunately it does.
How do you know? But if you do then why do you doubt that you should respect 'it'?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by attofishpi »

Arising_uk wrote:You have proof of this event? Although we do this all the time but we have to add grapes. Why is it not a miracle that we can all turn wine into urine?
This is part of my dilema. I have no proof for what i was witness to on several occasions. I did ass.ume that is what you meant by us causing matter to morph. I still don't believe in miracles. There is a rational explanation for what i witnessed. Their is a rational explanation for the existence of God.
Arising_uk wrote:Because you first postulated that a 'god' would evolve and then said there was already a 'god' and I assumed that the original would not much like the competition, not that I think there is one.
Ok. Do you see my reasoning for first making this postulation without throwing into the argument that i believe there already is one. Why pollute the debate. Granted my 'man' made God would not seem worthy of worship. But being born into that system, you would be none the wiser. There is a reason for hiding the true nature of reality. There is a reason for there being doubt.
Arising_uk wrote:And I replied that I see it not impossible that humans could create a technology that some may worship, but would it be the same as this 'god' that you already believe in?
Again, I DONT KNOW what i believe in. I have stated before that i know there is a 'God'. I am trying to determine the true nature of this 'God'..or God.
Arising_uk wrote:You'd have to explain what you mean by "conscious awareness" for me to think about what you say.

You misunderstand what logic is, logic is relationship, if there is one object in a state of affair then there is monadic logic, i.e it can be, it can not be, it can either be or not be, it cannot both be and not be, in formal symbolic logic, P, ¬P, P v ¬P, ¬(P ^ ¬P). If there are two objects you get dyadic logic, three - triadic logic, etc. Handily we don't need the triadic and up logics as all their relationships can be expressed in dyadic logic. These are known as the Propositional logics and they closely express the language of propositions and argument in language. The next logics are called the Quantificational and Predicate logics, there are more, but they all have Propositional Logic as their base.

I will be mightly impressed if you can write a virus that re-writes its own logic by analysis of its environment. Could you post the code please.(no need if you just mean that it rewrites its filename or extension or copys itself elsewhere, as this is not rewriting its logic but obeying its logic).
OK I find all this fascinating. I had a think about your original statement in relation to logic with the post prior and i think i understand your point, thanks for clarifying it further.

As far as coding a pc virus, i think not, it has been a while since i coded anything to be honest. So when i say re-write its own logic, what i am actually saying is that it modifies its algorithm...based on external conditions of its environment. You do agree that this is what a pc virus is capable of though? I am saying that the algorithm is its logic...but i see that is not correct.
So ¬ is the not symbol? Im used to C (!).

So i suggested that this God may have formed its 'logic'...however, now agreed logic IS a state of being. I said formed conscious awareness from the early universe primordial soup. You and i have conscious-awareness, what i am suggesting is that from all the sparks of the early universe a single entity with intelligence may have formed that became self aware.
Arising_uk wrote:Why does this 'god' require a 'rational scientific explanation'?(ignoring that science is not seeking such a thing).
Bullshit. Science is seeking everything.
Arising_uk wrote:Why not that this 'god' of yours goes the same way as we do when the universe reaches equilibrium of 'energy' across space.
Probably will...unless:- http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html (not sure if you have read this, but does seem appropriate)
Arising_uk wrote:How do you know? But if you do then why do you doubt that you should respect 'it'?
Cant answer any further on this line. It may not appear so, but is rather personal.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by Arising_uk »

attofishpi wrote:This is part of my dilema. I have no proof for what i was witness to on several occasions. I did ass.ume that is what you meant by us causing matter to morph. I still don't believe in miracles. There is a rational explanation for what i witnessed. Their is a rational explanation for the existence of God.
It was you who raised the morphing matter attofishpi?

What rational explanation have you come up with to explain what you witnesses that leads you to believe they were not miracles? I do agree there will be one.

I get confused about this, 'There is a rational explanation for the existence of God.', as if you know a 'god' exists then I assume you have a reason for doing so? Is this reason rational? As if not then why should there be a rational explanation for its existence?
Ok. Do you see my reasoning for first making this postulation without throwing into the argument that i believe there already is one. Why pollute the debate. Granted my 'man' made God would not seem worthy of worship. But being born into that system, you would be none the wiser. There is a reason for hiding the true nature of reality. There is a reason for there being doubt. ...
I can understand why you'd not include it. I'm not sure its "granted" that it would not seem worthy of worship as if its a 'god' whether its man-made would appear immaterial to those who worship 'gods'.

Are you saying that the 'god' you worhip may be alien-made? And that you may have been born into worshipping it?

What do you mean by "hiding the true nature of reality."?
Again, I DONT KNOW what i believe in. I have stated before that i know there is a 'God'. I am trying to determine the true nature of this 'God'..or God.
Sorry? You know something but don't believe it? Are you saying you know this 'god' but think it has a 'hidden true nature'?
Arising_uk wrote:OK I find all this fascinating. I had a think about your original statement in relation to logic with the post prior and i think i understand your point, thanks for clarifying it further.

As far as coding a pc virus, i think not, it has been a while since i coded anything to be honest. So when i say re-write its own logic, what i am actually saying is that it modifies its algorithm...based on external conditions of its environment. You do agree that this is what a pc virus is capable of though? I am saying that the algorithm is its logic...but i see that is not correct.
No, you are right, the algorithm is the logic of a program. Its that I don't understand what you mean by a virus rewriting its own algorithm inresponse to its environment? Could you explain more please, it might help me to nderstand what youare saying.
So ¬ is the not symbol? Im used to C (!).
Yup! But "!" is an implementation of logical negation and how its actually implemented can differ for programming languages as how to implement logical negation is/was a big issue in Computer Science.
So i suggested that this God may have formed its 'logic'...however, now agreed logic IS a state of being. I said formed conscious awareness from the early universe primordial soup. You and i have conscious-awareness, what i am suggesting is that from all the sparks of the early universe a single entity with intelligence may have formed that became self aware.
Not sure you can compare the two, as our 'conscious-awareness' appears to depend upon having the type of complex body that we do and so far we see no others having anything like it, although maybe some the cetaceans have.
Bullshit. Science is seeking everything.
Hmm...but its not actually seeking to prove a 'god' exists.
Probably will...unless:- http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html (not sure if you have read this, but does seem appropriate)
One of the greats, I'm remember this from years ago. The only problem I have with this is the idea of hyperspace is used to get Multivac out of the hole that it too would be subject to entropy and as such would have been diminishing along with rest.
Cant answer any further on this line. It may not appear so, but is rather personal.
Fair enough, although this may be where your doubts could be resolved.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by attofishpi »

Arising_uk wrote:What rational explanation have you come up with to explain what you witnesses that leads you to believe they were not miracles? I do agree there will be one.
OK, I was wrong to say that. Of course they were miracles. But miracles must have a rational explanation, there is an entity that can change the chemical structure of matter, an entity that controls all conceivable dimensions, and any beyond. Is it God? Is it a sage? Now you see, i would need to start talking about some personal experiences from here on with this line of questioning, and again, this is where it stops.
Arising_uk wrote:I get confused about this, There is a rational explanation for the existence of God.', as if you know a 'god' exists then I assume you have a reason for doing so? Is this reason rational? As if not then why should there be a rational explanation for its existence?
If there is not a rational reason for what i experienced, then i may as well be classified as crazier than a pork chop! I assure, i am sane :mrgreen: . Alas, therefore there is a God. And yes, therefore there must be a rational explanation for its existence.
Arising_uk wrote:I can understand why you'd not include it. I'm not sure its "granted" that it would not seem worthy of worship as if its a 'god' whether its man-made would appear immaterial to those who worship 'gods'.
Are you saying that the 'god' you worhip may be alien-made? And that you may have been born into worshipping it?
I didn't say i worship any God, but i suppose i do sometimes. Mostly i am in awe of it.
No i am not saying God is alien made. Though i have considered it as a possibility. Let me ask you a question, if you are out walking one day, and everything around you turned plain white as if you were floating in the middle of a cloud and a loud voice called out and said 'I am God!' Then, your surroundings returned to normal and you were again waking through a park. How would you attempt to explain anything? Would you then believe there is a God? If so, would you now try and find a rational explanation for its existence? If not, would you ponder that you are batshit crazy? What alternative are you left with?
Arising_uk wrote:What do you mean by "hiding the true nature of reality."?
That there is a third-party entity capable of knowing every synaptic connection within your brain, every thought, as you go about your daily routine. I have tested it. I cant prove it, so again, I shant comment further on this.
attofishpi wrote:Again, I DONT KNOW what i believe in. I have stated before that i know there is a 'God'. I am trying to determine the true nature of this 'God'..or God.
Arising_uk wrote:Sorry? You know something but don't believe it? Are you saying you know this 'god' but think it has a 'hidden true nature'?
Yes.
Arising_uk wrote:No, you are right, the algorithm is the logic of a program. Its that I don't understand what you mean by a virus rewriting its own algorithm inresponse to its environment? Could you explain more please, it might help me to nderstand what youare saying.
I think you do understand what i as talking about. I think you just want me to earn my words. Ok, a simple example, a virus ascertains that there is anti-virus sware installed on a machine with virus definitions that match its own code. Luckily for my virus in that the AV sware was not running at the time. So this virus bungs in a whole bunch of 'apparent' code, that will never be used to prevent itself from being identified. It identified its environment and found a way to prevent its own destruction.
Arising_uk wrote:Not sure you can compare the two, as our 'conscious-awareness' appears to depend upon having the type of complex body that we do and so far we see no others having anything like it.
Not sure we can compare a conscious awareness forming from the sparks of an early universe to that of a humans? I didn't ask you to. OK in a round-about way i did, you asked me to define conscious-awareness, so i used our own. I am again asking you, whether you consider it feasible- that an consciously aware entity could form from the primordial soup of the early universe? Dont do it...im warning you :P
Arising_uk wrote:Hmm...but its not actually seeking to prove a 'god' exists.
Depends which scientist you are speaking to.
Arising_uk wrote:Fair enough, although this may be where your doubts could be resolved.
No, please dont turn into my psychiatrist. Just when i actually think we are making some progress they go and put bullets through their heads.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by Arising_uk »

attofishpi wrote:OK, I was wrong to say that. Of course they were miracles. But miracles must have a rational explanation, there is an entity that can change the chemical structure of matter, an entity that controls all conceivable dimensions, and any beyond. Is it God? Is it a sage? Now you see, i would need to start talking about some personal experiences from here on with this line of questioning, and again, this is where it stops.
I'd have thought that a miracle by definition pretty much means that no rational explanation is forthcoming?
If there is not a rational reason for what i experienced, then i may as well be classified as crazier than a pork chop! I assure, i am sane :mrgreen: . Alas, therefore there is a God. And yes, therefore there must be a rational explanation for its existence.
Can a person, if they are crazy, know they are sane?
I didn't say i worship any God, but i suppose i do sometimes. Mostly i am in awe of it. No i am not saying God is alien made. Though i have considered it as a possibility. Let me ask you a question, if you are out walking one day, and everything around you turned plain white as if you were floating in the middle of a cloud and a loud voice called out and said 'I am God!' Then, your surroundings returned to normal and you were again waking through a park. How would you attempt to explain anything? Would you then believe there is a God? If so, would you now try and find a rational explanation for its existence? If not, would you ponder that you are batshit crazy? What alternative are you left with?
Something like this happened to a friend of mine and he became a born-again christian, changed his life and went of to do good works and 'gods' will.

If it happened to me, hmm...difficult to answer how I'd respond to such a powerful occurence. I take it that by 'god' you do not mean a specific 'god' of any specific religion? As my guess would be that this 'god' would be dependent upon ones previous beliefs. Still, as an atheist I'd definitely consider that I may be going mad but then again, given my background, I'd first assume I was having a flashback, barring that I'd think about what in my lifestyle may have caused my unconscious to give me such a powerful event and consider changing it if I didn't like the event, barring that I'd maybe think about how to get the experience back, barring that I think I'd wait to see if it happened again. I'd also think about going and getting a brain-scan as it may be symptomatic of a serious medical issue as whilst voices in ones head may be the normal case for thought, i.e. if we pay attention our voiced thoughts can be, and often are, in a different tone and timbre from our speaking one, although its not usual to notice them so clearly, white-outs are not I think. But because I do not have a belief in 'god/s' I doubt I'd be looking for a rational explanation for 'it' more one for the event.
That there is a third-party entity capable of knowing every synaptic connection within your brain, every thought, as you go about your daily routine. I have tested it. I cant prove it, so again, I shant comment further on this.
This is where you puzzle me, if you can test it then surely you have proved it. Can you provide this test to others such that they could as well and then you'd have more proof.

I do have a metaphysical suggestion that may provide something you'd consider a 'rational' explanation for these events but what would it do for you if you had such an explanation?
Yes.
Again, what would it do for you to discover this hidden thing?
I think you do understand what i as talking about. I think you just want me to earn my words. Ok, a simple example, a virus ascertains that there is anti-virus sware installed on a machine with virus definitions that match its own code. Luckily for my virus in that the AV sware was not running at the time. So this virus bungs in a whole bunch of 'apparent' code, that will never be used to prevent itself from being identified. It identified its environment and found a way to prevent its own destruction.
I have no hidden agenda talking to you nor wish you to 'earn your words', I'm genuinely unaware of virus-writing techniques. Okay, I think I understand now, from my perspective this is not rewriting its algorithm but obeying it. Re-writing would literally be that it altered its procedures and functions with new ones that still performed the same function.
Not sure we can compare a conscious awareness forming from the sparks of an early universe to that of a humans? I didn't ask you to. OK in a round-about way i did, you asked me to define conscious-awareness, so i used our own. I am again asking you, whether you consider it feasible- that an consciously aware entity could form from the primordial soup of the early universe? Dont do it...im warning you :P
What 'sparks' in the early universe?

Theres no point in asking me to consider something feasible and then telling me not to do it?

Again, you'd have to tell me what you mean by "consciously aware entity" in such a situation, as, as far as I can tell, its only now that the universe has produced such a thing. The time when matter has become complex enough to support such a thing.
Depends which scientist you are speaking to.
Fair point. I look forward to their discovery, as it'd solve a lot of issues. What happens if its not the 'god' of the theists? For that matter, what happens if its not a 'god' at all?
No, please dont turn into my psychiatrist. Just when i actually think we are making some progress they go and put bullets through their heads.
I'm not your shrink, I'm a budding philosopher. Where did you think we were making progress? And what progress was it?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by attofishpi »

Arising_uk wrote:I'd have thought that a miracle by definition pretty much means that no rational explanation is forthcoming?
I disagree in relation to a miracle as defined defies rational explanation. But from an atheist standpoint, there is no God, so there is no such thing as a miracle (in the divine sense of the word).
To me, and anyone not atheist, it is still rational to believe in a God.
Arising_uk wrote:Can a person, if they are crazy, know they are sane?
Maybe i'm the wrong person to ask?

Arising_uk wrote:If it happened to me, hmm...difficult to answer how I'd respond to such a powerful occurence. I take it that by 'god' you do not mean a specific 'god' of any specific religion? As my guess would be that this 'god' would be dependent upon ones previous beliefs. Still, as an atheist I'd definitely consider that I may be going mad but then again, given my background, I'd first assume I was having a flashback, barring that I'd think about what in my lifestyle may have caused my unconscious to give me such a powerful event and consider changing it if I didn't like the event, barring that I'd maybe think about how to get the experience back, barring that I think I'd wait to see if it happened again. I'd also think about going and getting a brain-scan as it may be symptomatic of a serious medical issue as whilst voices in ones head may be the normal case for thought, i.e. if we pay attention our voiced thoughts can be, and often are, in a different tone and timbre from our speaking one, although its not usual to notice them so clearly, white-outs are not I think. But because I do not have a belief in 'god/s' I doubt I'd be looking for a rational explanation for 'it' more one for the event.
Staunch Atheist! I find it absurd that you can contemplate how complex the universe is and don't at least turn agnostic.
Perhaps with the hypothetical i should have suggested the event reoccurs with clock-work precision each year.

Arising_uk wrote:This is where you puzzle me, if you can test it then surely you have proves it. Can you provide this test to others such that they could as well and then you'd have more proof.
You can't prove it (to others). Just like the other minds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_minds) But for yourself, you can test it and have it proved. If 'God' wants them to know...then yes, other people can test it, and they will know...

Arising_uk wrote:I do have a metaphysical suggestion that may provide something you'd consider a 'rational' explanation for these events but what would it do for you if you had such an explanation?
I'm all eyes, but it will probably tick me off some.

Arising_uk wrote:I have no hidden agenda talking to you nor wish you to 'earn your words', I'm genuinely unaware of virus-writing techniques. Okay, I think I understand now. from my perspective this is not rewriting its algorithm but obeying it. Re-writing would literally be that it altered its procedures and functions with new ones that still performed the same function.
The overall function of the virus would remain, whatever it was written to accomplish in the first place. The internal procedures may end up being modified to skip the redundant code.

Arising_uk wrote:What 'sparks' in the early universe? Theres no point in asking me to consider something feasible and then telling me not to do it? Again, you'd have to tell me what you mean by "consciously aware entity" in such a situation, as, as far as I can tell, its only now that the universe has produced such a thing. The time when matter has become complex enough to support such a thing.
I'm going to fold here.

Arising_uk wrote:Fair point. I look forward to their discovery, as it'd solve a lot of issues. What happens if its not the 'god' of the theists? For that matter, what happens if its not a 'god' at all?
You're confusing me now. If its not a God at all, then why say they have discovered God?
If its not the God of the theists? I do believe that ALL monotheistic religions\faiths are following the same entity. Each faith is based on man's interpretation of experience of that God in their particular culture. For me, the only way this God could be anything other than that of ALL faiths, is if it said so. You know like, 'Hey all ye down there, drop all yer current faiths and follow me, i am your God...the giant squid in the sky.'

attofishpi wrote:No, please dont turn into my psychiatrist. Just when i actually think we are making some progress they go and put bullets through their heads.
Arising_uk wrote:I'm not your shrink, I'm a budding philosopher. Where did you think we were making progress? And what progress was it?
You didnt seriously think that i was about to consider you my shrink? The 'we' was my shrink and me...making progress. A little light humour.

Im looking forward to the article in the Phil. Now Mag...'The simulated universe'....think there is conjecture there re. your alien suggestion and my 'AI'...
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by chaz wyman »

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish”

David Hume
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by Arising_uk »

attofishpi wrote:I disagree in relation to a miracle as defined defies rational explanation. But from an atheist standpoint, there is no God, so there is no such thing as a miracle (in the divine sense of the word). To me, and anyone not atheist, it is still rational to believe in a God.
Well, its fairly obvious that if one believes in 'god/s' then one would think it rational to do so. So how would you define a miracle, a 'divine intervention'? If so why do you think it ameanable to a rational explanation?
Maybe i'm the wrong person to ask?
Or maybe the wrong one to assert you are sane?
Staunch Atheist! I find it absurd that you can contemplate how complex the universe is and don't at least turn agnostic. ...
Did I say I was 'staunch'? I was once, then I was an agnostic atheist, then a militant agnostic, now I'm an agnostic apatheist. Since I quite like rational explanations I find Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology, Molecular Biology and the Theory of Evolution enough to explain the complexity of the universe without the need to have a deity as an extra explanation, not least because it'd presumably have the ability to interfere and as such make a mockery of the aforementioned subjects. So whilst I could live with Spinozas 'god' at a pinch, I'll have to pass on most others.
Perhaps with the hypothetical i should have suggested the event reoccurs with clock-work precision each year.
Hmm... I have a few thoughts about this, one is that I'd like some external confirmation before I'd believe such a thing, i.e. someone else recording the times, dates and location, does it happen in the park every time? Two, I'd wonder if it was tied to any unresolved unconscious event linked to these dates and times? Three, I'd convince someone to let me get hooked-up to some brain function scanners or even a cat scan so the event can be recorded for scientific investigation, four, does it say the same thing each time and have you tried to talk back to the voice?
You can't prove it (to others). Just like the other minds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_minds) But for yourself, you can test it and have it proved. If 'God' wants them to know...then yes, other people can test it, and they will know...
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. But with respect to 'other minds', since I'm not a dualist I find the presence of the others body and that I can't make it do what I wish with my 'mind' enough proof that others exist and may have 'minds'.
I'm all eyes, but it will probably tick me off some.
Why? What are you thinking about? Or is it any metaphysical explanation of your thoughts would 'tick you off'?
The overall function of the virus would remain, whatever it was written to accomplish in the first place. The internal procedures may end up being modified to skip the redundant code.
I thought you said the code was rubbish? As such I'd have thought you'd have to either comment it to skip it or tag it in some way, so its still following its logic rather than re-writing it.
I'm going to fold here.
Care to say why before you do?
You're confusing me now. If its not a God at all, then why say they have discovered God? If its not the God of the theists? I do believe that ALL monotheistic religions\faiths are following the same entity. Each faith is based on man's interpretation of experience of that God in their particular culture. For me, the only way this God could be anything other than that of ALL faiths, is if it said so. You know like, 'Hey all ye down there, drop all yer current faiths and follow me, i am your God...the giant squid in the sky.'
So if science discovered a pantheon of 'gods' or the deists 'god' or the FSM you'd not believe it?
You didnt seriously think that i was about to consider you my shrink? The 'we' was my shrink and me...making progress. A little light humour.
I'm glad you and your shrink are making progress. What I seriously considered was that you were considering that I was psychoanalysing you in some way.
Im looking forward to the article in the Phil. Now Mag...'The simulated universe'....think there is conjecture there re. your alien suggestion and my 'AI'...
Ah! So you have heard of Fredkins Digital Physics?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by attofishpi »

Arising_uk wrote:Well, its fairly obvious that if one believes in 'god/s' then one would think it rational to do so. So how would you define a miracle, a 'divine intervention'? If so why do you think it ameanable to a rational explanation?
Because i see nothing irrational in believing there is a God.

Arising_uk wrote:Or maybe the wrong one to assert you are sane?
Maybe. Are you sane?

Arising_uk wrote:Hmm... I have a few thoughts about this, one is that I'd like some external confirmation before I'd believe such a thing, i.e. someone else recording the times, dates and location, does it happen in the park every time? Two, I'd wonder if it was tied to any unresolved unconscious event linked to these dates and times? Three, I'd convince someone to let me get hooked-up to some brain function scanners or even a cat scan so the event can be recorded for scientific investigation, four, does it say the same thing each time and have you tried to talk back to the voice?
Have i tried to talk back to what voice? It was a hypothtical situation directed at you.

Arising_uk wrote:Sounds like wishful thinking to me. But with respect to 'other minds', since I'm not a dualist I find the presence of the others body and that I can't make it do what I wish with my 'mind' enough proof that others exist and may have 'minds'.
You can touch 'someone' and have conversations with 'them'? Your reality is made up of only five senses...are you sure they are not simulations?

Arising_uk wrote:Why? What are you thinking about? Or is it any metaphysical explanation of your thoughts would 'tick you off'?
Of course its going to tick me off. Im the one on the backfoot here, trying to shed light on the existence of something more elusive than it is profound.

Arising_uk wrote:The overall function of the virus would remain, whatever it was written to accomplish in the first place. The internal procedures may end up being modified to skip the redundant code.
I thought you said the code was rubbish? As such I'd have thought you'd have to either comment it to skip it or tag it in some way, so its still following its logic rather than re-writing it.
So you DID understand my original point? If not, then go speak to a hacker that codes viruses, im sure one can give you a suitable example...you are being pedantic.

Arising_uk wrote:Care to say why before you do?
Er yeah, i've got a life with far more interesting things to get on with.

Arising_uk wrote:So if science discovered a pantheon of 'gods' or the deists 'god' or the FSM you'd not believe it?
I think the FSM would be a stretch.

Arising_uk wrote:I'm glad you and your shrink are making progress. What I seriously considered was that you were considering that I was psychoanalysing you in some way.
Again, it was a joke...I dont have a shrink. And, yeah, you are attempting to psychoanalyse me.

Arising_uk wrote:Ah! So you have heard of Fredkins Digital Physics?
Ah! No i hadn't. Looks interesting.
Do you think the word REALITY was brought about by means of natural etymology? If so, isnt it an amazing coincidence that it actually breaks down to REAL IT Y?
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual

Post by Arising_uk »

attofishpi wrote:Because i see nothing irrational in believing there is a God.
But you understand nothing irrational in the idea that you, a person who this 'god' knows everything about can fathom its reasons for being and doing so? You are a 'god' as well?
Maybe. Are you sane?
I've not, so far, been declared insane by others.
Have i tried to talk back to what voice? It was a hypothtical situation directed at you.
Sorry, in this hypothetical situation has the person tried to answer back to the voice that says, "I am God"? Who does this person think this phrase is being referred too, a 'god' or the person?
You can touch 'someone' and have conversations with 'them'? Your reality is made up of only five senses...are you sure they are not simulations?
I know they are simulations but could they be emulations is what I want to know. As I prefer representations rather than simulations.
Of course its going to tick me off. Im the one on the backfoot here, trying to shed light on the existence of something more elusive than it is profound.
Try being more balanced and not allow things to annoy you. There are many things that are elusive and not profound that I assume you don't allow to tick you off. Take what applies there and apply it here.
So you DID understand my original point? If not, then go speak to a hacker that codes viruses, im sure one can give you a suitable example...you are being pedantic.
:lol: A pedant upon a philosophy forum, who'd have thunk!

I understood because you explained it? I thought you were that hacker and you're the first I've met. My interest is because I've been around computing for a long time.
Er yeah, i've got a life with far more interesting things to get on with.
But these thoughts appear intimately connected to the rest of your thoughts, so would appear pertinent to them?
I think the FSM would be a stretch.
Don't see why? It meets all the criteria and also has the pirate stats to back it up, which is more than most.

So you would accept a pantheon of 'gods' or any of the thousands that have been believed in?
Again, it was a joke...I dont have a shrink. And, yeah, you are attempting to psychoanalyse me.
How would you know if you've never had a shrink? But I accept your word and apologise as I'm oft to literal in communication, as I've been told many times.
Ah! No i hadn't. Looks interesting.
Shame that you'll have to buy the book as he used to have it all online.
Do you think the word REALITY was brought about by means of natural etymology? If so, isnt it an amazing coincidence that it actually breaks down to REAL IT Y?
I don't know but would you think it so if you weren't an English speaker? Wirklichkeit, Realidad, Réalité, Realtà, Werkelijkheid, Πραγματικότητα, Реальность, etc
Post Reply