I'm pretty sure there's no god now

[viole]

I don't remember saying that they did .. I'm not sure what you mean

What I mean is the following: spacetime is eternal and immutable. It does not change, it did not start and it does not end. We cannot use tensed verbs, or verbs that involve change, when it comes to describe it. It looks like a 4-dimensional bell, or cone, with an apex that we identify as the Big Bang.

It does not expand, either. It is us who travel through its geodesics away from the apex and towards regions that have vaster surrounding space extension. So to speak.

All points and events in it, that lie in our past and future, exist. They did not exist, neither they will exist. They exist eternally. And cannot be changed, by definition.

The good news is that I exist "forever". The bad news is that I am already dead. Lol

All this assuming that relativity is correct, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

You know I have a brain and you could look at it if you wanted to.
Just like you know the computer has hardware inside it that makes it operate, and you could pop it open and look at that too.

That's right, and as I'm aware of how a computer functions, I realise the brain functions in a similar fashion. If it didn't then the laws of physics would be violated.

 

[thevoiceofgod]

God used google?

God is the Creator of Google and everything else that we experience.

 

[thevoiceofgod]

This is demonstrable, as in, someone could literally sit down and show this to you.
I've yet to see you demonstrate the truth of your claims.

No man can understand my thoughts before they are shared through written or spoken words, bodily movements, drawing, painting, etc. You've been listening to liars who think they can do this.

 

[thevoiceofgod]

On what basis do you make such a claim?

I speak for our Creator who is outside His creation. This is the only way we know that we're experiencing life in a simulated universe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's right, and as I'm aware of how a computer functions, I realise the brain functions in a similar fashion. If it didn't then the laws of physics would be violated.

Similar enough to make an analogy but not similar enough to say they are the same as there are a number of significant differences.
But I wonder why you're repeating this again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No man can understand my thoughts before they are shared through written or spoken words, bodily movements, drawing, painting, etc. You've been listening to liars who think they can do this.

Ok. I'm done.
Have a nice life.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You don't think the Cheetah enjoys those hunts? have you ever owned a cat?!

The gazelle certainly doesn't enjoy it. And the cheetah doesn't enjoy a failed hunt. Nor does it enjoy getting it's successful kill stolen 90% of the time.

But this is besides the point. The point is, the cheetah is fast in order to catch the gazelle. The gazelle is fast in order to evade the cheetah. Why design that? It's like some sadistic game where God supports both sides of the war, kinda like how a superpower country funds two sides of the same war.

But I don't believe Cheetahs or any other animals are the intended primary beneficiaries of creation, and we can only speculate on the amount of suffering v joy they experience.

I don't think it's a matter of speculation. It's pretty clear the animal kingdom is a very harsh reality. That's not speculation.

Because again, joy, love, triumph, and ultimately true purpose of any kind cannot exist without it.

You're conveniently hand waving over my point again. Love, joy, pleasure etc... are rare feelings while their "opposites" are very common. Why the asymmetry?

You see no beauty, derive no pleasure from tall trees? and the life they support?

I wouldn't see any less beauty in short trees. I do, however, see less of a point in tall trees that are only tall to obtain more sunlight than other trees, which defeats the purpose if every other tree is gonna be tall as well.

 

[thevoiceofgod]

Ok. I'm done.
Have a nice life.

You have a nice eternal life, too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The gazelle certainly doesn't enjoy it. And the cheetah doesn't enjoy a failed hunt. Nor does it enjoy getting it's successful kill stolen 90% of the time.

But this is besides the point. The point is, the cheetah is fast in order to catch the gazelle. The gazelle is fast in order to evade the cheetah. Why design that? It's like some sadistic game where God supports both sides of the war, kinda like how a superpower country funds two sides of the same war.



I don't think it's a matter of speculation. It's pretty clear the animal kingdom is a very harsh reality. That's not speculation.

bugs live a harsh life from our perspective also- how harsh it is for them is a different matter, Much of the harshness we perceive is a very human psychological perspective.

You're conveniently hand waving over my point again. Love, joy, pleasure etc... are rare feelings while their "opposites" are very common. Why the asymmetry?

Again, if there is an asymmetry- for the vast majority of us, it's that good outweighs bad, life is very precious, very well worthwhile, despite the hardships, because of them in fact is the point I'm making. Most of us would not prefer oblivion


God made a world with no fear, no pain, no hate or grieving - for Jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, accomplishment, glory for them either,

would you trade? me neither.

I wouldn't see any less beauty in short trees. I do, however, see less of a point in tall trees that are only tall to obtain more sunlight than other trees, which defeats the purpose if every other tree is gonna be tall as well.

Tall trees are an inherent part of the life support system of earth, a habitat, an essential building material and fuel for humanity, without which we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

If I were designing a world, I'd certainly want tall trees in it! subjective perhaps.. But many 'pointless phenomena' like volcanoes, earthquakes etc were considered evidence of bad or non-design, before we learned they were essential components to life on earth.

There will always be questions about things we don't understand, where the light of science has not yet shone, and we can say 'who would design that?'--

but isn't that just atheism of the gaps?

 

[outhouse]

God made

Rhetoric

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

God made a world with no fear, no pain, no hate or grieving - for Jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, accomplishment, glory for them either,

You sort of contradicted yourself there. How do you know the jellyfish doesn't feel those things? Especially after saying I have no way of knowing how animals feel about certain things.

would you trade? me neither.

I don't see why oblivion is the only other option.

In other words, you're saying all those positive feelings can't exist without those negative feelings. Why not? Is that a limit to god's power? Is he not omnipotent then?

Tall trees are an inherent part of the life support system of earth, a habitat, an essential building material and fuel for humanity, without which we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Many of them don't need to be freakishly tall, outside of the need to compete with each other for sunlight. Again, handwaving over critical detail and responding with vague and broad claims.

If I were designing a world, I'd certainly want tall trees in it! subjective perhaps.. But many 'pointless phenomena' like volcanoes, earthquakes etc were considered evidence of bad or non-design, before we learned they were essential components to life on earth.

Volcanoes and earthquakes are still not ideal, even considering their positive roles.

There will always be questions about things we don't understand, where the light of science has not yet shone, and we can say 'who would design that?'--

but isn't that just atheism of the gaps?

That's just it though. In the framework of Evolution through Natural Selection, it IS understood. It's able to reconcile EXACTLY why both a cheetah and gazelle are fast. They're both fast due to being in an evolutionary arms race. Both force the other into a runaway evolution where if one is fast, it forces the other to be fast, which in turn forces the other to be fast, which forces the other to be fast. Rinse and repeat.

Again, more convenient handwaving from you.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You sort of contradicted yourself there. How do you know the jellyfish doesn't feel those things? Especially after saying I have no way of knowing how animals feel about certain things.

no brains.. pretty safe bet they are not pondering their own lives!

I don't see why oblivion is the only other option.

In other words, you're saying all those positive feelings can't exist without those negative feelings. Why not? Is that a limit to god's power? Is he not omnipotent then?

yes, left cannot exist without right, these terms literally define each other, it's not a matter of omnipotence, but logic.

we can reduce the distance to nothing, as in the Jellyfish, but we can't have one without the other.

This is entirely aside from whether God would want to anyway, the challenges that make us human, progress our understanding and appreciation of creation, are largely based on striving for 'good' over 'bad' are they not?

Can a person truly be 'good' if they literally have no alternative?

Many of them don't need to be freakishly tall, outside of the need to compete with each other for sunlight. Again, handwaving over critical detail and responding with vague and broad claims.

as above, I don't see that the observation of competition in nature somehow denotes bad design, quite the opposite.

Along with beauty, habitat, extremely useful building material, fuel... we could not have explored the Earth without extremely tall trees to build ships... I really can't see what is so bad about trees here, one of my favorite things!

Volcanoes and earthquakes are still not ideal, even considering their positive roles.

The tectonic system regenerates land, creates new land, separates land masses and species allowing diversity, and provides one of the most awe inspiring demonstrations of natures power, not sure how I would improve on their design, but willing to see your plans!

That's just it though. In the framework of Evolution through Natural Selection, it IS understood. It's able to reconcile EXACTLY why both a cheetah and gazelle are fast. They're both fast due to being in an evolutionary arms race. Both force the other into a runaway evolution where if one is fast, it forces the other to be fast, which in turn forces the other to be fast, which forces the other to be fast. Rinse and repeat.

Again, more convenient handwaving from you.

Evolution is obviously debatable, I agree with you to the extent, a Cheetah is fast for a reason, to catch prey

But I am skeptical of the premise that Cheetahs became significantly faster through purely random mutations!

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

no brains.. pretty safe bet they are not pondering their own lives!

They have feelings and respond to stimuli, and have a nervous system. Their nervous system just doesn't have a central processor (brain).

In a way, their whole body is a brain it self. Ours is too, in some sense. It's very difficult to think of how our brain functions on its own because it's so intertwined with the rest of the body.

yes, left cannot exist without right, these terms literally define each other, it's not a matter of omnipotence, but logic.

I don't see the analogy. And I notice a lot of you guys present false analogies as a basis for an argument. Left and right are abstract, while pleasure and pain are subjective (feelings in the brain). Subjectivity and abstraction are two different things. Don't mix the two.

Which leads me to another point. There's nothing, in principle, preventing an organism with a mind that always feels pleasure. So why doesn't a god who's the epitome of goodness, idealism and whatnot, bestow that upon an organism? You couldn't even say that always feeling good would get boring, because boredom it self is a feeling in the brain. God can simply prevent brains from getting bored. So why not do it?

the challenges that make us human, progress our understanding and appreciation of creation, are largely based on striving for 'good' over 'bad' are they not?

Some humans yes, and only because their brains are predisposed to appreciate the Universe that way due to the structure of their brain. But like I said, in principle, the brain didn't have to be that way. It could have been a brain that experiences perpetual pleasure without the need of seeing any contrasting suffering.

Can a person truly be 'good' if they literally have no alternative?

Sure. Isn't that what you believe God is? Absolutely good without having an alternative?

as above, I don't see that the observation of competition in nature somehow denotes bad design, quite the opposite.

The not-so-fast cheetahs die off without a chance of reproduction. The not-so-tall trees die off due to not getting enough sunlight. Either God has a degree of incompetence, or he does bad design on purpose.

The tectonic system regenerates land, creates new land, separates land masses and species allowing diversity, and provides one of the most awe inspiring demonstrations of natures power, not sure how I would improve on their design, but willing to see your plans!

If I had omnipotent power and omnipotent knowledge, I would simply manifest a system with all the benefits of seismic and tectonic activity, with none of the disastrous elements it comes with. Basically, an absolutely perfect, ideal world. Shouldn't be too hard if I myself am the epitome of perfection, idealism, absolute power.

Evolution is obviously debatable, I agree with you to the extent, a Cheetah is fast for a reason, to catch prey

But I am skeptical of the premise that Cheetahs became significantly faster through purely random mutations!

The cheetah didn't become faster through purely random mutations. Natural selection, a non-random process, is a critical factor.

Do you doubt random mutations even happen, good or bad?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't see the analogy. And I notice a lot of you guys present false analogies as a basis for an argument. Left and right are abstract, while pleasure and pain are subjective (feelings in the brain). Subjectivity and abstraction are two different things. Don't mix the two.

The analogy is about relative terms, both are relative terms.

Yes they are different things, that's the point of an analogy- different in one sense, similar in another.

Hot and cold, we can consider these in both abstract and subjective terms. And let's say there is nothing in principle to stop God making a world that was always pleasantly warm, everywhere, a pleasant 73 degrees constantly.

We would have no appreciation of cold weather and hence no particular appreciation of warmth either. This is not a particular controversial observation!

And the secondary point applies also, solving the problem of cold weather, shelter, fire, clothing... is in great part responsible for our humanity, progression, learning, appreciation of the world we live in.
Jellyfish don't have to do that, or much of anything, hence the lack of brain, sentient experience, accomplishments, appreciation of creation

Some humans yes, and only because their brains are predisposed to appreciate the Universe that way due to the structure of their brain. But like I said, in principle, the brain didn't have to be that way. It could have been a brain that experiences perpetual pleasure without the need of seeing any contrasting suffering.

And again that brain would know nothing of displeasure, no challenge, purpose, no humanity

Sure. Isn't that what you believe God is? Absolutely good without having an alternative?

That place is called heaven.

If I had omnipotent power and omnipotent knowledge, I would simply manifest a system with all the benefits of seismic and tectonic activity, with none of the disastrous elements it comes with. Basically, an absolutely perfect, ideal world. Shouldn't be too hard if I myself am the epitome of perfection, idealism, absolute power.

why not remove all challenges altogether, always pleasantly warm, no responsibility, food merely floats into our mouths, again- he DID create that, and I think we agree we would not trade with a Jellyfish!

The cheetah didn't become faster through purely random mutations. Natural selection, a non-random process, is a critical factor.

Natural selection... of what?

Natural selection of a significantly superior design goes without saying, it's why the Ford Mustang outlived the Ford Pinto...

But a significantly superior design arising purely by random chance.. is another matter entirely.


Anyway must run for now, I am very hungry and looking forward to cooking up a good hot tasty meal--

darn- if only I simply absorbed nutrition unconsciously without effort and never had to bother with such imperfect experiences!


but I will respond when I have time, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion[/quote][/quote]

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The analogy is about relative terms, both are relative terms.

Good and bad are relative terms. Pleasure and pain aren't. They're emotions.

Yes they are different things, that's the point of an analogy- different in one sense, similar in another.

You can find similarities and differences in almost anything. It doesn't mean you can make an analogy between the two as a valid argument.

Hot and cold, we can consider these in both abstract and subjective terms.

Hot and cold are not abstract. They're physical properties of physical systems.

We would have no appreciation of cold weather and hence no particular appreciation of warmth either.

Due to the structure of brain, not due to some abstract law of logic. God should have no problem giving us a brain that would always appreciate something.

And again that brain would know nothing of displeasure

Indeed. That would be the whole point of making a perfect ideal world.

no challenge

Also the point.

purpose

I already see no purpose in this universe, outside of what we decide for ourselves.

no humanity

No doubt. Humans likely wouldn't exist in an absolutely perfect and ideal world. So no humans = no humanity.

Whatever lifeforms would exist, they would have [insert said lifeform name]-ity.

That place is called heaven.

It's a yes or no question. Is he or is he not? I didn't ask you about heaven.

Natural selection... of what?

Of inheritable traits.

But a significantly superior design arising purely by random chance.. is another matter entirely.

Why continue to say this? No one claims it even happens, and I'm sure time and time again, people have told you that there's nothing random about natural selection. It implies dishonesty on your part.

but I will respond when I have time, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion

If you appreciate this discussion so much, then don't dodge my question a second time when you return. Do you doubt random mutations even happen at all, good or bad?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Good and bad are relative terms. Pleasure and pain aren't. They're emotions.

good and bad emotions.... relative terms.... I think you understand this

You can find similarities and differences in almost anything. It doesn't mean you can make an analogy between the two as a valid argument.

I agree there!



' like how a superpower country funds two sides of the same war.'

Hot and cold are not abstract. They're physical properties of physical systems.

that just leaves me 'cold'

Due to the structure of brain, not due to some abstract law of logic. God should have no problem giving us a brain that would always appreciate something.

He did and we do, appreciate the good and the bad, in contrast with each other.

once again, it's not that s**t happens, but that s**t matters, that makes us human

I already see no purpose in this universe, outside of what we decide for ourselves.

Nor does a honey bee in a hive, what evidence do you see of an accidental existence?

No doubt. Humans likely wouldn't exist in an absolutely perfect and ideal world. So no humans = no humanity.

Whatever lifeforms would exist, they would have [insert said lifeform name]-ity.

the label would not determine the difference, it would be fundamentally inhuman in more than just name, having no purpose, self determination, no knowledge of suffering hence no pity, mercy, no acts of good

Once again this life form already exists : Jellyfish-ity

It's a yes or no question. Is he or is he not? I didn't ask you about heaven.

yes, as are we all if/when we join him in heaven

Why continue to say this? No one claims it even happens, and I'm sure time and time again, people have told you that there's nothing random about natural selection. It implies dishonesty on your part.



If you appreciate this discussion so much, then don't dodge my question a second time when you return. Do you doubt random mutations even happen at all, good or bad?

don't debate angry!

you seem like a perfectly honest intelligent person to me, I assume the same for everybody here, at the very least it makes for a more interesting thoughtful discussion than mere ad hominem attacks

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

good and bad emotions.... relative terms.... I think you understand this

I never used the word good and bad. Pleasure and pain are simply two different emotions.

I agree there!

' like how a superpower country funds two sides of the same war.'

Point out where that analogy fails? God granting high-speed locomotion to two competing animals, where one has to chase the other, is precisely the same as a country funding and supporting two sides of the same war.

He did and we do, appreciate the good and the bad, in contrast with each other.

Due to the structure of our brain. Again, it doesn't have to be like that in principle.

Nor does a honey bee in a hive, what evidence do you see of an accidental existence?

I never used the word "accident".

Once again this life form already exists : Jellyfish-ity

I said before that jellyfish have a central nervous system that feels and reacts to stimuli. It's whole body is essentially a brain.

yes, as are we all if/when we join him in heaven

So then a person can truly be good without having an alternative?

don't debate angry!

Don't dodge my question for the fourth time.

you seem like a perfectly honest intelligent person to me, I assume the same for everybody here, at the very least it makes for a more interesting thoughtful discussion than mere ad hominem attacks

I haven't done any ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem attacks is when I attack your character in order to refute your argument, regardless of what it is you say. E.g. "Your argument about abortion is invalid because you're a drunk alcoholic that constantly sleeps with women."

What I'm saying is you're coming off as dishonest because you've, as of now, dodged my question a third time, as well as handwaved over critical detail and responded with broad and somewhat irrelevant statements.

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'

Dodging a question three times in a row is the most graceless indication of dishonesty.

Do you doubt random mutations happen at all, good or bad?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I mean is the following: spacetime is eternal and immutable.

immutable, yes .. but eternal? No!
Where did you get that idea from?

 

[viole]

immutable, yes .. but eternal? No!
Where did you get that idea from?

Well, it must be, if the concept of being not eternal makes sense only within it. Spacetimes do not begin at a certain time and at a certain place. For instance, it makes no sense to say that Universe was born at that location. There is no birth location. In the same way there is no birth time. As a whole, the Universe simply is.

Google eternalism or block universe, for more details.

Ciao

- viole