An argument for the existence of God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by chaz wyman » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:02 pm

attofishpi wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:Define re-incarnation.
noun
1. The belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
You did that. But you used another term, not defined."Soul".

Define 'soul". Re-incarnation depends on that definition.

BTW. You did not address the problem:


noun
1. The belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2. rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.
.


1 and 2 are not the same as 3. You want to have 3, but you are using 1 and 2 to pretend that re-incarnation is meaningful.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by attofishpi » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:52 pm

chaz wyman wrote:Define 'soul". Re-incarnation depends on that definition.

BTW. You did not address the problem:
noun
1. The belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2. rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.

1 and 2 are not the same as 3. You want to have 3, but you are using 1 and 2 to pretend that re-incarnation is meaningful.
I really don't give a flying rats ass about being drawn into a logic debate over 3 points of a dictionary definition.

I'm sitting on the point 1. The belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.

I defined my reasoning as to what a 'soul' could actually constitute on the previous page.

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by chaz wyman » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:33 pm

attofishpi wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:Define 'soul". Re-incarnation depends on that definition.

BTW. You did not address the problem:
noun
1. The belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2. rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.

1 and 2 are not the same as 3. You want to have 3, but you are using 1 and 2 to pretend that re-incarnation is meaningful.
I really don't give a flying rats ass about being drawn into a logic debate over 3 points of a dictionary definition.
I'm not interested in a dictionary definition. I was interested in YOUR definition. I wanted to see if your belief is defensible or coherent.
It seems it is neither.
Thanks for playing

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by attofishpi » Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:46 pm

chaz wyman wrote:I'm not interested in a dictionary definition. I was interested in YOUR definition. I wanted to see if your belief is defensible or coherent.
It seems it is neither.
I agree my 'belief' is scant.

I already defined my conception of reincarnation in the previous page. I defined my idea of the soul.

We have already debated this shit. What more would you like?

For what reason should i continue to debate with one who is amongst the many, those not in the know?

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:11 am

Your notion of a God developing self-awareness from the chaos of the early universe has potential, but requires much more development. I'd suggest turning to thermodynamics rather than chaos theory, otherwise your insight offers nothing really new.

For example, consider the big uglies in conventional cosmology:
"How did the many particles required to make an atom come into being? How did they happen to fit together so nicely? How did the 26-odd fundamental constants get set up so perfectly?"

I propose that a decent creator-theory could be put to good use explaining such things, but you want to introduce "God" as a by-product of an already complex universe. That does not seem to buy you any advantage over conventional opinions.

I appreciate your core idea and see no reason for you to give up on it. Why not redevelop it in a simpler context? Don't be shy about correcting weak logic and incompatibilities with the core principles of physics. Good luck!

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:12 pm

Someone with your credentials i am sure appreciates rational debate, so let me throw in a spanner.

CUSTODY

I ask that you sit on a chair of 'consideration' or 'contemplation' where you know that 'God' did create this language via the minds of man - 'God' being ALL pervasive.

Break that word down (e.g. as per page 1) such that its resulting question is the most rational representation pertaining to its original form, and explain why it is rational pertaining to the said word.

If you think there is no rationale in relation to the word 'custody' in consideration of the stated 'God' then just say so.
:D

PS. Perhaps then we can discuss the thermodynamics aspect in relation to proposition 2 on page 1..



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:08 pm

Greylorn and i have agreed that i am being an ass in my above post...

My art project:- Beyond Reasonable Doubt:- http://www.androcies.com will explain my will in that regard.

CUSTODY
Reversed: Why dots you see?
Y_DOTS_UC?
When you are held in custody for questioning, the police are attempting to 'join the dots'...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greylorn wrote:Your notion of a God developing self-awareness from the chaos of the early universe has potential, but requires much more development. I'd suggest turning to thermodynamics rather than chaos theory, otherwise your insight offers nothing really new.

For example, consider the big uglies in conventional cosmology:
"How did the many particles required to make an atom come into being? How did they happen to fit together so nicely? How did the 26-odd fundamental constants get set up so perfectly?"
Correct me if im wrong, and even though the internet is awesome for the likes of me, by 26 odd fundamental constants are you talking about the something in relation to the standard model?
Greylorn wrote:I propose that a decent creator-theory could be put to good use explaining such things, but you want to introduce "God" as a by-product of an already complex universe. That does not seem to buy you any advantage over conventional opinions.
Yes i want to introduce 'God' as a byproduct of an already complex universe.
Why?
Because that is the only way i can comprehend it.
If nothing caused God then all i can suggest is that it formed from chaos.
I comprehend it more rationally as it being a result of something, as opposed to it being a creator of something.
If we are to talk of creation, then 'The Creation' (our reality) is a result of its result.

Thats my preferred 'divine' theory.
------
My other theory is that 'God' is the result of technology - be it mans or other intelligent species in relation to dealing with the onset of entropy.
(Thermodynamics - energy cannot be created or destroyed. But energy can and will progress to a less useful form (entropy))

If we are suggesting that this 'God' is a result of 'something' then we can grapple with an intelligent perhaps man made 'God' since as time progresses entropy will increase and man may find a way to reincarnate our beings but with some kind of rational condition set to justify why 'we' as sub entities have the right to perhaps re live again - based on the way we have conducted ourselves. (the '10' commandments?)

Greylorn wrote:I appreciate your core idea and see no reason for you to give up on it. Why not redevelop it in a simpler context? Don't be shy about correcting weak logic and incompatibilities with the core principles of physics. Good luck!
Thanks, I deal with 'God' on a daily basis...ive yet to give up on working out what 'IT' is...in fact the only reason i have ever posted on this forum is because i know it exists and i want to know what it is.
Its reason of existence is???

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:28 am

attofishpi wrote:Greylorn and i have agreed that i am being an ass in my above post...

My art project:- Beyond Reasonable Doubt:- http://www.androcies.com will explain my will in that regard.

CUSTODY
Reversed: Why dots you see?
Y_DOTS_UC?
When you are held in custody for questioning, the police are attempting to 'join the dots'...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greylorn wrote:Your notion of a God developing self-awareness from the chaos of the early universe has potential, but requires much more development. I'd suggest turning to thermodynamics rather than chaos theory, otherwise your insight offers nothing really new.

For example, consider the big uglies in conventional cosmology:
"How did the many particles required to make an atom come into being? How did they happen to fit together so nicely? How did the 26-odd fundamental constants get set up so perfectly?"
Correct me if im wrong, and even though the internet is awesome for the likes of me, by 26 odd fundamental constants are you talking about the something in relation to the standard model?
Greylorn wrote:I propose that a decent creator-theory could be put to good use explaining such things, but you want to introduce "God" as a by-product of an already complex universe. That does not seem to buy you any advantage over conventional opinions.
Yes i want to introduce 'God' as a byproduct of an already complex universe.
Why?
Because that is the only way i can comprehend it.
If nothing caused God then all i can suggest is that it formed from chaos.
I comprehend it more rationally as it being a result of something, as opposed to it being a creator of something.
If we are to talk of creation, then 'The Creation' (our reality) is a result of its result.

Thats my preferred 'divine' theory.
------
My other theory is that 'God' is the result of technology - be it mans or other intelligent species in relation to dealing with the onset of entropy.
(Thermodynamics - energy cannot be created or destroyed. But energy can and will progress to a less useful form (entropy))

If we are suggesting that this 'God' is a result of 'something' then we can grapple with an intelligent perhaps man made 'God' since as time progresses entropy will increase and man may find a way to reincarnate our beings but with some kind of rational condition set to justify why 'we' as sub entities have the right to perhaps re live again - based on the way we have conducted ourselves. (the '10' commandments?)

Greylorn wrote:I appreciate your core idea and see no reason for you to give up on it. Why not redevelop it in a simpler context? Don't be shy about correcting weak logic and incompatibilities with the core principles of physics. Good luck!
Thanks, I deal with 'God' on a daily basis...ive yet to give up on working out what 'IT' is...in fact the only reason i have ever posted on this forum is because i know it exists and i want to know what it is.
Its reason of existence is???
Atto,
I apologize for the delayed response to this. I'd neglected to mark the little "Notify me..." box. Thought mistakenly that you'd blow this off.

I appreciate your questions and curiosities. Their answers are in the book that I'm on this forum to promote, after the fashion that passes in me for "promotion," which can easily be confused with "pissing off potential readers." I once advised the occasional interested reader to get my book on amazon.com, but that was before those assholes started keeping my meager profit and nicking me $5 for every book they sell. If you want the book, it's available for "free." PM me.

I'm rewriting "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" because its current version sucks. The ideas are good but my original presentation was clouded by pain-killers and the destruction of the U.S.A. Neither the pain nor the destruction have abated, but I've taken a different attitude toward them both. I'd love to find reviewers for the rewrite. No cost, except your time. You'd get a chapter at a time and I'll expect cogent comments and the answers to questions showing that you've actually read the material.

I make a point of personally acknowledging those who've contributed their own ideas to the theory; of my last set of contributors, only one, a mathematician, was willing to disclose his full name.

BTW, the 26 or whatever constants that you don't know about have nothing to do with the
"standard model" that you don't know about either but have heard about from documentary TV. Don't worry about it. Whenever I park my ass on a "Standard" toilet seat I think of the "standard model," the second stupidest physics theory since phlogiston. I think that you are looking for something deeper than the names of theories to drop. If so, if you actually care about fundamental ideas, I will do my best to explain mine to you, and to recommend the best of contrary alternatives for your evaluation.

Lots of individuals hold beliefs in what they mistakenly interpret to be the non-physical because of personal psychic experiences. Few speak of these publicly for fear of derision. I've had mine, so will not question the honest experiences of others. Can't speak for some of the assholes on this forum, though.

After writing the above I checked out your website, artistically done and cogently presented, but it lacks content. I'm more concerned with content than with art. While I appreciate both, they each have their place. My first book was a novel that was surprisingly well-received. It tried to introduce some fairly deep metaphysics, but the story was intense and got in the way of the philosophy. Anyone who is not a reincarnation of Ayn Rand is best advised to stick to philosophy or story, one of the other. Same with artists.

I'm adding this because of an unexpected comment from you about entropy. Unlike most who use the terminology, you seem to have taken the trouble to learn its meaning. I think that you are on the right track. Energy and entropy, plus consciousness and the reasons for creation are interrelated.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by attofishpi » Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:39 pm

Mr Ell
Thankyou for taking the time to appreciate my website http://www.androcies.com. It was indeed an online art project (Beyond Reasonable Doubt) that i created as part of the Adelaide Fringe in 2012.
After much dealings with 'God' and an invisible sage as mentioned at the beginning of this thread i felt i needed to embark on such a feat, after all, isnt it our soles that keep us upon them :wink:.
I felt the concepts i had learnt did deserve embellishment into some sort of art form, a picture can paint a thousand words as they say.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I'm adding this because of an unexpected comment from you about entropy. Unlike most who use the terminology, you seem to have taken the trouble to learn its meaning. I think that you are on the right track. Energy and entropy, plus consciousness and the reasons for creation are interrelated.
Based on this statement alone i certainly would like to have a read of your work though as i have stated previously, i am certainly not the most educated person around these traps, so please dont expect too much from me if i fail to understand your concepts...and i hope it will be me asking the questions.
Further, i am a busy bod so don't try to push a schedule at me, as you may have noticed i can go weeks not posting here since i have more pressing commitments than an internet forum to deal with.

What type of novel have you written? I have an ebook (cyberpunk sub-genre) on amazon. I did a print run of 100 books and sold all of them covering my editor and print costs and i was overwhelmed by the positive response of friends\work colleagues that bothered to read it.
The first chapter vividly details the dystopian world where the main character is 'living' and is pretty heavy to take in. There is a lot info to digest in that chapter but eventually the setting changes to the beautiful Paris of 2105.
http://www.androcies.com/alphatwo.html

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:13 am

attofishpi wrote:Mr Ell
Thankyou for taking the time to appreciate my website http://www.androcies.com. It was indeed an online art project (Beyond Reasonable Doubt) that i created as part of the Adelaide Fringe in 2012.
After much dealings with 'God' and an invisible sage as mentioned at the beginning of this thread i felt i needed to embark on such a feat, after all, isnt it our soles that keep us upon them :wink:.
I felt the concepts i had learnt did deserve embellishment into some sort of art form, a picture can paint a thousand words as they say.
Atto,
I once worked with an interesting astronomer and lab director with whom I shared an occasional after-work beer/martini. After a few drinks he would show his true colors as a punster. Were he alive today I'd put the two of you in touch, but alas, too many martinis did away with him long ago. Visiting his deathbed I was tempted to say, 'Ted, I'll pine for you. I may also balsam,' but my wife of that time was there and she'd have been really pissed if he'd have upchucked and died on the spot.
attofishpi wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:I'm adding this because of an unexpected comment from you about entropy. Unlike most who use the terminology, you seem to have taken the trouble to learn its meaning. I think that you are on the right track. Energy and entropy, plus consciousness and the reasons for creation are interrelated.
Based on this statement alone i certainly would like to have a read of your work though as i have stated previously, i am certainly not the most educated person around these traps, so please dont expect too much from me if i fail to understand your concepts...and i hope it will be me asking the questions.
Further, i am a busy bod so don't try to push a schedule at me, as you may have noticed i can go weeks not posting here since i have more pressing commitments than an internet forum to deal with.
Good. I'll arrange to make the book available to selected readers. I'll use the Book Section of this forum to post access to some preliminary material, probably the first several chapters. However I'm going to come up with a scheme that will only allow constructive readers to freely access the material. Others will have to buy the book.

I'll begin with some pages that amount to a glorified T.O.C., with a brief abstract for each chapter. From there, interested readers can proceed or not.

The website version of my book was originally used to generate the printed version, but is no longer a direct copy. I'm modifying the website material to reflect my new, relatively pain-free attitude and to correct two errors in the original, and to include new ideas about the nature of dark energy. (That's physics stuff, but you don't need to read that material. Few do.) You do not need to read anything according to any kind of schedule. I recommend that those who read the book spend at least a half-year doing so. The revised website material is likely to be coming out at that kind of pace, and only revised chapters will be made available.

I'll PM you after initiating a thread in the Book section. I do not want to get your expectations raised too highly. You seem to believe in relatively conventional religious themes, and "Digital Universe..." is not about religion; it deals with a mix of physics, philosophy, and theology.

The book differentiates religion and theology because they are really unrelated, but most religious people think that the two subjects are inseparable, nevermind the many religious variations that operate under the theology of an omnipotent, omniscient God. To appreciate my ideas you will need to make these differentiations, retaining your religious beliefs while exploring an alternative, physics-based theology. Not easy.
Greylorn Ell wrote:What type of novel have you written? I have an ebook (cyberpunk sub-genre) on amazon. I did a print run of 100 books and sold all of them covering my editor and print costs and i was overwhelmed by the positive response of friends\work colleagues that bothered to read it.
The first chapter vividly details the dystopian world where the main character is 'living' and is pretty heavy to take in. There is a lot info to digest in that chapter but eventually the setting changes to the beautiful Paris of 2105.
Congratulations! You did much better than I. My print run was overzealous. But then, I'm doing a different kind of thing. Moreover, I have no network of friends likely to buy complex books since I lead an isolated life. I gave my only friend a copy.

I read the first few pages of this, http://www.androcies.com/alphatwo.html[/quote], but alas, did not connect with it. Currently working on Penrose's "Consciousness and the Universe," plus some arcane biological theories, I've not read fiction in many years. As you say, that chapter was busy. Too busy to engage my interest. Sorry about that. I've been spoiled by Keith Laumer (IMO the standard for action sci-fi, before he had a stroke), and to some extent by Robert Heinlein.

My first formally published book was marketed as general fiction. Its publisher considered my proposal to sell it as sci-fi, but he was a small general fiction publisher, and none of his sales people knew how to market anything else. Keith Laumer gave it a glowing recommendation, but general publishing people did not know who he was, preferring recommendations from the likes of William Golding, whose material I detest. The US paperback was marketed as a horror story, akin to "Audrey Rose." Foreign translations successfully marketed the book as action/drama. I'd classify it as metaphysical fiction, except that there is no such category. Despite that confusion, two chapters have been used in philosophy courses. Go figure. (That book was written under my given name, so you'll not find it easily, although it remains available on the cult-book circuit, with hardcover copies going for $40++.)

Keep writing. I produced five manuscripts before getting one published. Consider developing characters and general theme before tossing out newly invented jargon. Laumer's "Retief" short stories are fine models.

Good luck!
Greylorn

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An argument for the existence of God

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:00 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:Atto,
I once worked with an interesting astronomer and lab director with whom I shared an occasional after-work beer/martini. After a few drinks he would show his true colors as a punster. Were he alive today I'd put the two of you in touch, but alas, too many martinis did away with him long ago. Visiting his deathbed I was tempted to say, 'Ted, I'll pine for you. I may also balsam,' but my wife of that time was there and she'd have been really pissed if he'd have upchucked and died on the spot.
Haha...goodo (as we all do-to something)...an embalm comes to mind, cheers...would have liked to meet him.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests