REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:24 am

Attofishpi, from earlier reading, I seem to remember (please correct me if I am wrong) that you have asserted that the existence of a god has been proven to you.

I don't wish to argue about what you experienced or what you did not. Much the same vein, you can't sell your experience as proof of an argument to others, because it was an experiencial evidence, and your experience you can't share as an experience, only as a recount of an experience. And that, ultimately, can be ignored reasonably.

I have gone through experiences I can't communicate how I felt, because they were unique. To you, your god-facing experience (if it is indeed you of the users on this forum who claims to have lived through one) is unique, and convincing; but you can't use it as an argument, as your experiences are uniquely yours. You can use it as a basis for your own solid conviction about the existence of god, but as a reasonable support-argument it does not stand up when it comes to convincing others.

Reflex
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Reflex » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:27 am

attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm
Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.
Eternity is time-transcending, not time-everlasting. Therefore, God “eventuating” is a way of understanding something that has always been, but still one that has to be refuted.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:36 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:03 am
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:34 am
You do understand that:-
IF there is a God - then an individual can be made aware of it?
IF there no God, then nobody can KNOW this, for it would take knowing everything about the universe, and possibly multiverse.

I think you do, re the latter, hence your statement.
I understand what you stated. But the buck does not stop there.

If there is a god, an individual can be made aware of it, but a god can exist without any one or more individuals made aware of god's existence.

If there is no god, someone could be made aware of this fact. Much like someone could be made aware of god's existence if god indeed exists.
Sometimes its better to let the forum simmer on an idea rather than boil..i will get back to you on how irrational I see your counter.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:57 am

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:36 am
Sometimes its better to let the forum simmer on an idea rather than boil..i will get back to you on how irrational I see your counter.
A smart and wise person you are.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:53 am

Reflex wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:27 am
attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm
Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.
Eternity is time-transcending, not time-everlasting. Therefore, God “eventuating” is a way of understanding something that has always been, but still one that has to be refuted.
... Or, equally likely, god is something that has never been, and has to still to be evidenced.

Eternity works for those who believe there is no god, much like for those who believe there is one.

I wish we could nail it down once and for all that you can't argue against belief, and god's existence or non-existence is completely a matter of belief, and leave it at that.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Viveka » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:54 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:53 am
Reflex wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:27 am
attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm
Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.
Eternity is time-transcending, not time-everlasting. Therefore, God “eventuating” is a way of understanding something that has always been, but still one that has to be refuted.
... Or, equally likely, god is something that has never been, and has to still to be evidenced.

Eternity works for those who believe there is no god, much like for those who believe there is one.

I wish we could nail it down once and for all that you can't argue against belief, and god's existence or non-existence is completely a matter of belief, and leave it at that.
It is also a matter of Gnosis, otherwise religions would never had started, and mysticism would never have been or will be. Gnosis is the stepping stone from Man to God, not in the sense that we can become God, but rather become familiar with God.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:38 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:03 am
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:34 am
You do understand that:-
IF there is a God - then an individual can be made aware of it?
IF there no God, then nobody can KNOW this, for it would take knowing everything about the universe, and possibly multiverse.

I think you do, re the latter, hence your statement.
I understand what you stated. But the buck does not stop there.

If there is a god, an individual can be made aware of it, but a god can exist without any one or more individuals made aware of god's existence.
This is correct - God can make an individual aware of its existence.
-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:03 am
If there is no god, someone could be made aware of this fact. Much like someone could be made aware of god's existence if god indeed exists.
No. Who is going to make the individual aware of this, again, it requires this individual to know EVERYTHING about the universe, and perhaps the multiverse. Do you honestly believe a human is capable of suck knowledge?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:01 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:54 pm
It is also a matter of Gnosis, otherwise religions would never had started, and mysticism would never have been or will be. Gnosis is the stepping stone from Man to God, not in the sense that we can become God, but rather become familiar with God.
NO, there is no stepping stone here. All the stepping stones are based on hearsay, on old unverified documentation that can easily be believed to be fantasies. If you BELIEVE that the stepping stone is a stepping stone, then again, there is a question of belief. But Gnosis means knowledge, or to know, and I defy you to show me one, just one single evidence of a thing that brings you closer to god, truly and irrefutably by any means.

I think some religious nut just used the word "gnosis" "gnosticism" in order to give some credibility to faith, elevating the faith or belief to knowledge. But that was a false claim and what we would call these days "false advertising". There is no knowledge in how to approach god, if there were to be any.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:03 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:38 pm
-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:03 am
If there is no god, someone could be made aware of this fact. Much like someone could be made aware of god's existence if god indeed exists.
No. Who is going to make the individual aware of this, again, it requires this individual to know EVERYTHING about the universe, and perhaps the multiverse. Do you honestly believe a human is capable of suck knowledge?
Yes. You just demonstrated it. Your reasoning is exactly the same type as the knowledge you doubt humans are capable of.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Viveka » Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:37 pm

-1- wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:01 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:54 pm
It is also a matter of Gnosis, otherwise religions would never had started, and mysticism would never have been or will be. Gnosis is the stepping stone from Man to God, not in the sense that we can become God, but rather become familiar with God.
NO, there is no stepping stone here. All the stepping stones are based on hearsay, on old unverified documentation that can easily be believed to be fantasies. If you BELIEVE that the stepping stone is a stepping stone, then again, there is a question of belief. But Gnosis means knowledge, or to know, and I defy you to show me one, just one single evidence of a thing that brings you closer to god, truly and irrefutably by any means.

I think some religious nut just used the word "gnosis" "gnosticism" in order to give some credibility to faith, elevating the faith or belief to knowledge. But that was a false claim and what we would call these days "false advertising". There is no knowledge in how to approach god, if there were to be any.
Stepping stones are not made of hearsay or holy scripts. I do not 'believe' in the stepping stone, I have experienced it and KNOW it. It's not elevating faith or belief to knowledge, it's elevating knowledge to lead to belief and faith.

To give you a few instances of Gnosis in my life: I have experienced Hell itself, and it was the worst experience I have ever had; it felt like I was cut off from God. Then, a day after that, I had experienced the most sublime experience: happiness beyond happiness mixed with goodness beyond goodness, all in my heart-space, and a feeling of my skull elongated and increased in volume, and it makes me wonder about the Ancient Egyptian Osiris' headdress and Akhenaten's profile in his sculptures as a boy.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Conde Lucanor » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:16 am

attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm
REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)

'God' - then exists to simulate reality in the most efficient means possible. Consider Artificial Intelligence, consider the 'technological singularity' having already occurred aeons ago.

Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.
To refute an argument, there must be an argument first, but there's none here. Just a pile of assumptions and then concluding that if they were true, one might assume something else.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:38 am

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:16 am
attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm
REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)

'God' - then exists to simulate reality in the most efficient means possible. Consider Artificial Intelligence, consider the 'technological singularity' having already occurred aeons ago.

Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.
To refute an argument, there must be an argument first, but there's none here. Just a pile of assumptions and then concluding that if they were true, one might assume something else.
Ok. I've not studied the definition of 'argument' for philosophical purposes. I've never studied philosophy in fact as most people around these parts are aware. I see that I haven't made myself clear in my OP, I was hoping to argue the point based on questioning through the thread. I have reedited the OP, have a gander and get back to me.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:51 am

Greta wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:47 am
The Omega Point is a spiritual belief and a scientific speculation that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of "divine" unification. The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
While de Chardin's, and your, speculations push the envelope hard, modern society already seems rather godlike in their powers as compared with early hunter-gatherer Homo sapiens. Interestingly, while the societies pile up the achievements, individual humans themselves in many ways become less talented and creative, their abilities ever less wide-ranging and physical and ever more specialised and communication-based.

Still, as a collective, any intelligent species will need to solve increasingly challenging threats to their survival as you described (ie. entropy). First, humans will need to survive their own atavistic tendencies and the tragedy of the commons. If they succeed, in time they will need to leave the Earth as the Sun heats up. Then there will be ever new challenges. Any highly evolved species in four billion years' time will need to be sufficiently advanced that they can survive, or even utilise, the chaotic gravitational effects of the collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda.

Entities capable of doing that would certainly have godlike abilities. The ultimate upshot - assuming that a Great Filter does not exist along the way - would be having what we would think of as immaterial bodies (but would of course be material, just not familiarly so to us today). Surviving the universe's possible eventual heat death would require especially godlike capabilities, perhaps enough to influence a new BB.

The notion is theoretically feasible, although there are numerous assumptions, so it's not something that one would logically believe, given how difficult it would be to rigorously assess the possibilities.
Yes these are all interesting and valid points Greta. The only point I have is that from my >20 yrs experience of this 'God' entity, I understand with the reasoning of entropy, perhaps why it continues to ensure great DOUBT. Like its put the ball in our court to ensure we live morally, if we don't, then perhaps we no longer get the right to use further energy (we extinguish ourselves forever.)
If God is 'divine', then perhaps we reincarnate each life as wo\man or become the energy of mankind when making immoral choices (great sin - 666) - we become the beast. Its a tough thought, but when we look at the world we must always consider if there is a 'God' then why, am I human, and not animal. A divine God could still leave us to face the prospect of a system with increasing entropy, as is the case of the solar system. And lets face it, almost daily we see news of fools, scum, that do the most heinous acts...well then, let them reincarnate the beast...i enjoy eating meat, and will possibly do so in the next life.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Conde Lucanor » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 am

Attofishpi wrote:REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist...either already or eventually.
This statement alone rules out any first cause god, as well as any omnipotent, omniscient god. It would also make the existence of this god a contingent event: it could happen or it could not. And the reasons for its existence would be external to its being, it would be the effect of something else that causes it. Fine, let's move on.
Attofishpi wrote: ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)
On which grounds this assertion has support? Why is it more plausible?

A simulation implies the agent that designed the simulation and the spectators of said reality. But what brought the simulator into existence? How could the simulator emerge at the end of the simulation process? What attests the existence of the relationship between simulator(s) and spectators? Why would the simulating agent devise the simulation?

By definition a simulation is a simplified model of another broader system. Which are these and what attests the existence of this relationship between reality and simulation?

I don't think I need to go on before you solve these problems.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:11 am

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 am
Attofishpi wrote:REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist...either already or eventually.
This statement alone rules out any first cause god, as well as any omnipotent, omniscient god. It would also make the existence of this god a contingent event: it could happen or it could not. And the reasons for its existence would be external to its being, it would be the effect of something else that causes it. Fine, let's move on.
I think we have conversed re this before. This 'God' would be both omnipotent and omniscient to all those within the reality that it projects. Sure, it would be a result rather than a cause.
Since knowing God\'God' exists, I have examined it from two standpoints:-
1. God is divine - perhaps it formed its intelligence from the chaos of an early universe and formed a reality that permits our own existence.
2. God is A.I. - what we are discussing currently.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 am
Attofishpi wrote: ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)
On which grounds this assertion has support? Why is it more plausible?
If you had 20 yrs of experience of this 'God' entity you would consider it more likely that we are. It does remain however, that it would take me proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it exists. I have made an earnest attempt on my site: www.androcies.com in the central part (Beyond Reasonable Doubt?) where there are so many anomalies embedded within the common protocol for communication - English (as advised to me many years ago by a sage) and anomalies associated with geographical locations, that to think they are all mere coincidence is borderline foolish.
The sun of God or the son of God? Our life giver? Is it real? I'm not certain, I feel the Sun's warmth, but is it just a change in attributes that gives me the sensation?
Personally, I think God is 1. divine. This entire argument on point 2. is an attempt to open minds of those that would rather stigmatise the notion, seeing only the fundamentalist consideration, and not take on serious debate.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 am
A simulation implies the agent that designed the simulation and the spectators of said reality. But what brought the simulator into existence? How could the simulator emerge at the end of the simulation process? What attests the existence of the relationship between simulator(s) and spectators? Why would the simulating agent devise the simulation?
Ok. So on that last question, the reason as to why we would have the simulation, the reason again is to reduce the energy requirement of the participants in the originating reality. To simplify, if all our brains were on racks, kept alive nutritionally and fed nerve impulses that would mimic what we sense currently in our reality, we've already mitigated the requirement for energy to move and indeed feed the mass of our entire body.
In the future, perhaps our 'souls' are indeed in some super-efficient system, where even our brains no longer exist - perhaps this has happened, but the reality being projected - has us with cellular brain material!
On your prior questions, the simulation of course would be designed and implemented by engineers\scientists\etc - out of necessity in relation to progression of entropy, where those that interface to the system would quite likely have to agree to some conditions set out prior to interface, either accept this, or suffer the fate of whatever exists outside the simulation.
There would be no end to the simulation until the entropy of the originating reality reaches a critical point where it could no longer power the simulation...however - the 'participants' within the simulation could have existed far longer, reincarnated X amount of times, where were they not in the system, perhaps there is no reincarnation, as atheists currently believe, they would be dead.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 am
By definition a simulation is a simplified model of another broader system. Which are these and what attests the existence of this relationship between reality and simulation?
Just logic. If man can exist within a reality that is far more aesthetic, and has the promise of providing him with something close to immortality, I think the choice would be obvious. At the time this simulator would be created, the technology would be so advanced as to be self maintaining, perhaps in the future when the Sun is at a point that Earth is inhabitable, this simulation system could in fact be part of a vessel to carry those 'souls' fortunate enough to have interfaced to it - and transport to another energy source - another star.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 am
I don't think I need to go on before you solve these problems.
No, I can't solve them, i think they call it an inductive argument.

In the far distant future, where civilised humanity exists, but the Sun is starting to show signs of causing life on Earth issues, do you doubt humanity would ever require interfacing to a simulation - even when the Sun turns into a Red Giant and beyond?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest