Is God impossible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the science states that consciousness isn't impermanent; it's form is. atennae captures electrical impulses and transmit it. it doesn't create it, or destroy it, it simply directs the conductivity of it.

I don't think "the science" says that at all.

 

[Fool]

I don't think "the science" says that at all.

knowledge(science) is like belief systems. it's a rorschach test. one scientist filters the data through their mind and comes to another conclusion based on experience. another scientist filters the information through their mind and comes to another conclusion.

an open mind considers the possible. a closed mind can't consider the possible. it's shut the door on such a possibility

it's you thinking..................

“This world spins from the same unseen forces that twist our hearts.” David Mitchell - Cloud Atlas

 

[Acim]

Objective and subjective describe perspectives on absolutely everything. Nothing is exempt from perspective.

At least you responded.

Still doesn't lay claim to what is truly objective. I realize we think it exists, but perhaps (for sake of discussion) our individual notions of objectivity are all subjective? Or IOW, true objectivity would seem to rest on omnipresence, if not omniscience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

knowledge(science) is like belief systems. it's a rorschach test. one scientist filters the data through their mind and comes to another conclusion based on experience. another scientist filters the information through their mind and comes to another conclusion.

an open mind considers the possible. a closed mind can't consider the possible. it's shut the door on such a possibility

it's you thinking..................

“This world spins from the same unseen forces that twist our hearts.” David Mitchell - Cloud Atlas

IOW, your position is a subjective interpretation and it doesn't reflect a scientific consensus in the relevant field.

 

[Fool]

Love transforms everything, destroys the illusion, enlightens the darkness like the stars forever.


while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?


is it a wave? is it a particle? guess it's how you look at it?

NOVA | Elegant Universe | Resonance in Strings | PBS


And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

 

[Fool]

IOW, your position is a subjective interpretation and it doesn't reflect a scientific consensus in the relevant field.

no it doesn't reflect the exacting language, agreed. the idea is there


The Dumb Parrot

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

no it doesn't reflect the exacting language, agreed. the idea is there

I'll believe that once it's the actual scientific consensus, not while it's just what you think the consensus ought to be.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

"until someone gives a good reason to believe that God is possible. Does anyone have such a reason?"

Apparently there is a 'some one' out there and while not wishing to sound too incredulous, I'm TESTING by faith for the justification of such a 'reason' at the moment. The real question is does one really want to know or just like listening to the sound of ones own arguments or defending the status quo? For those who are of the first disposition, trials are underway. So if anyone wants to join others in resolving the biggest question in history, start here. The Final Freedoms

Or as Dante noted in his Divine Comedy:

For as I turned, there greeted mine likewise
What all behold who contemplate aright,
That's Heaven's revolution through the skies.

I say maybe.

... if for no other reason than when we ask a question and have no information to help us come up with an answer, the default answer is always "maybe": it could be yes or no, but we don't have enough information yet to tell which.

So could God be impossible? The answer is yes... until someone gives a good reason to believe that God is possible.

Does anyone have such a reason?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God's existence is not only possible, but actually required in order to explain some of the properties of our universe. For instance, the natural laws that dictate the way in which the universe behaves are completely rational and can even be described using mathematics. It could even be said that the universe has been written in the language of mathematics. Now, how could this set of rational natural laws have arisen from chaos?

I don't know. Is our lack of imagination enough to base an argument on?

In order for such a set of laws to exist, the universe must have had a creator.

You have a long way to go before you'd be even close to establishing this.

This is just one of the reasons why the existence of God, far from being impossible, is actually necessary to explain the way in which our universe works.

That "reason" was less than compelling. What else have you got?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

And people like u that see all these phenomena and deny the existence of God are very weird too.

People like you who see all the myriad forces at work in the Universe and insist that reflects unity rather than diversity are even more bizarre. As a polytheist, I actually believe it likely that Allah exists; I just don't buy into all the hype and conflicting claims made about him.

Actually we don't need to.
If u doubt about an inventor of a car u can doubt the existence of a creator.

Yes, you do. In order for the car designer analogy to make sense you'll have to admit that God is also caused - as you allege the car designer is. Trying to argue an uncaused cause using a caused cause is rather hypocritical. It's also something of a non-sequitur - 'This car was designed therefore my God is the Uncaused First Cause of everything'.

 

[1137]

You aren't entitled to my time or effort. I give your posts the attention I feel they they warrant. If I thought I could learn something from you, you would get more of my time.

Ah, those you cannot refute aren't worth your time. Now we see your priorities in philosophy!

 

[interminable]

Yes, but lots of things that don't exist can't be seen or heard either. You still need some sort of evidence.

Evidences for a materialist?
I can't
For proving the existence of the creator by logic or reason u need not to be materialist otherwise it would be useless

It isn't a fact; it's an empty claim. Why should I accept it?

Why did u just ignore my proving why God isn't material???
Please comeback and read it carefully

 

[interminable]

People like you who see all the myriad forces at work in the Universe and insist that reflects unity rather than diversity are even more bizarre. As a polytheist, I actually believe it likely that Allah exists; I just don't buy into all the hype and conflicting claims made about him.

U look things separately but those who believe in unity look at the whole

Yes, you do. In order for the car designer analogy to make sense you'll have to admit that God is also caused - as you allege the car designer is. Trying to argue an uncaused cause using a caused cause is rather hypocritical. It's also something of a non-sequitur - 'This car was designed therefore my God is the Uncaused First Cause of everything'.

Infinite regress will solve the problem

Besides for materialists there is no choice but to make examples of something that is visible and typical to make their minds closer to the main meaning.

 

[Fool]

I'll believe that once it's the actual scientific consensus, not while it's just what you think the consensus ought to be.

the eye can't realize what the mind can't imagine

 

[Etritonakin]

I say maybe.

... if for no other reason than when we ask a question and have no information to help us come up with an answer, the default answer is always "maybe": it could be yes or no, but we don't have enough information yet to tell which.

So could God be impossible? The answer is yes... until someone gives a good reason to believe that God is possible.

Does anyone have such a reason?

That which is now has generally always had the potential to be. However, that which is must also be preceded by that which is specifically able to bring it into being. That which is now has "always" been -yet has changed in configuration.

That which is must become a new configuration which makes possible yet other configurations based thereupon.

We see that certain things can not happen at this point without self-aware, intelligent creative activity -and that has essentially always been true, but we don't know exactly how it applies to "everything" because we don't know everything.

Whether we are considering the origin of God or of matter and energy, etc., the answer would be the same. Either it came from nothing or it has "always" been -yet it has become different.

We see that our self-ware creative intelligence is by arrangement of that which exists -so the potential is also part of the basic nature of all that exists.
God would essentially be the whole of everything being aware of itself and becoming increasingly complex in self-configuration. Awareness is basically interaction -so it is possible that it began most simply.

The question then is whether "everything" was necessarily a self-aware creative intelligence (perhaps having developed into such) before our universe and our selves were possible.

Given the nature of our universe and our selves, I would say God is not only possible, but absolutely necessary.

We are made of that which was produced by the Big Bang -and even the singularity capable of self-extracting into the universe specifically was far too complex to have been the very beginning, or most simple arrangement.
The singularity must have been preceded by an arrangement capable of its arrangement -something capable of storing/packaging its potential to become the universe specifically -just as its arrangement was capable of extracting into the universe specifically.

The nature of the universe, etc., is indicative of forethought -but we do not yet know enough about "everything" to determine scientifically that thought must have been applied to cause this specific arrangement.

It also seems logical to me that for God to be all-powerful, God must be the sum of all things, and must have begun with the most simple interactions possible which could become all else by arrangement.

(We, as individuals, begin in a complex arrangement of a small portion of that which exists -and that specific complex arrangement is actually the source of our weaknesses, vulnerabilities and limited ability to interface.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, those you cannot refute aren't worth your time. Now we see your priorities in philosophy!

When I'm on a forum, every so often, I ask myself "why am I writing this post?" If I csn come up with a reason (and it can be something as basic as "I'm having fun"), I keep going. If I can't think of a reason, I just walk away from the thread.

I find that a lot of the time with you:

- you don't seem interested in listening to reason, so I don't expect to change your mind.
- the stuff you argue is ridiculous enough that I don't see the need to use it to change some lurker's mind.
- you aren't a good enough debater for me to use the experience to improve my skills.
- my hope that I might learn something useful from you died after our first few interactions.
- talking to you often isn't particularly fun.

... so I end up not seeing a reason to continue with you more often than with most other members here.

 

[1137]

When I'm on a forum, every so often, I ask myself "why am I writing this post?" If I csn come up with a reason (and it can be something as basic as "I'm having fun"), I keep going. If I can't think of a reason, I just walk away from the thread.

I find that a lot of the time with you:

- you don't seem interested in listening to reason, so I don't expect to change your mind.
- the stuff you argue is ridiculous enough that I don't see the need to use it to change some lurker's mind.
- you aren't a good enough debater for me to use the experience to improve my skills.
- my hope that I might learn something useful from you died after our first few interactions.
- talking to you often isn't particularly fun.

... so I end up not seeing a reason to continue with you more often than with most other members here.

Hey whatever you need to tell yourself! I'm understanding. If you come up with anything against the points we've argued in the future I'll be here! But for the record when you can't even begin a refutation, no need to pretend that makes my points poor nor my debate skills. In fact, it says nothing about me at all.

 

[Willamena]

At least you responded.

Aww.

Still doesn't lay claim to what is truly objective. I realize we think it exists, but perhaps (for sake of discussion) our individual notions of objectivity are all subjective? Or IOW, true objectivity would seem to rest on omnipresence, if not omniscience.

I lay claim to what is truly objective. You can, too.

Objective primarily refers to what is true--that is, fact, free of opinion or rhetoric. People use it to refer to an image of the world that is "the way that I see things being outside of me, out there," but more properly it's an image of the world that is "independent of what I think about the world." In any case, it's an image of the world, our image. The world, in itself, is neither objective nor subjective, those are perspectives of relation. In relation to us all the things of the world can be either (but not both at the same time), depending on whether we refer to the facts about them, or refer to them in opinion (or rhetorically). When we refer to the facts about them, we refer to them objectively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In fact, it says nothing about me at all.

No, it doesn't. All it says is that, to me, your post didn't warrant the effort of a detailed response.

 

[Acim]

I lay claim to what is truly objective. You can, too.

Objective primarily refers to what is true--that is, fact, free of opinion or rhetoric. People use it to refer to an image of the world that is "the way that I see things being outside of me, out there," but more properly it's an image of the world that is "independent of what I think about the world." In any case, it's an image of the world, our image. The world, in itself, is neither objective nor subjective, those are perspectives of relation. In relation to us all the things of the world can be either (but not both at the same time), depending on whether we refer to the facts about them, or refer to them in opinion (or rhetorically). When we refer to the facts about them, we refer to them objectively.

I'm unaware of any facts that are not also filtered through individual thoughts about that data. Such that the 'fact' itself is plausibly only based on what I think it is. Elevating it to 'fact' strikes me as inherently biased. Or (as you've heard me say before), things in my night dreams could be equally considered facts. More so at the time of the experience, but I'd argue even on hindsight, with awareness of it being my dream. I would say things that appear in the dream (i.e. a table) are 'factually existing' in much the same way as a table exists in a room where you and I may also be present.

That it is a 'table' is 'about' the world, not the thing in and of itself. Not to mention that sub-atomically (or fundamentally) it is really not different than every other possible thing. But macroscopically, it appears different, I'll grant that. Yet, that then comes backs to thoughts about the thing, or everything.

With the night dream, I think the assumption routinely is, I put the table there, or my imagination did, but I honestly don't see it as different from the waking version, other than I seem to question the nature a bit more in wakeful mind than I do in sleeping mind. In both instances, I rarely am consciously explicitly laying claim to 'things that exist in this world' and just take it for granted.

How this all ties in with God, as reason to believe such possibility, I am (believe it or not) prepared to make the connection. But doing so, would make this post look very long if I didn't leave things right here, for now, to see what agreement there is on this, or what disagreements there may be.