Only one possible reason for the universe?

[rageoftyrael]

I find it odd that someone who would happily point out that we couldn't possibly understand a god's motives(with no evidence for this statement, but I digress) has absolutely no problem trying to ascribe understanding to a god's motives. Earlier I noticed you and another basically agreeing with each other that people couldn't really comprehend a god, kind of by default I guess, because a god would, for some reason, have to be so much more than humans. I find this interesting, because it's entirely possible that a creator could actually be quite simple. A creator could be little more than a process, popping out creations with absolutely no thought at all. Or there could be a creator who creates while asleep, unintentionally, and isn't even aware that this bizarre little universe we are in exists. Or there could be a creator who isn't all that intelligent at all, and just made things as best they could. All of these are perfectly valid possibilities and let's be honest, we could have fun coming up with even more. I feel like the point that everyone who disagrees with you is trying to make is that what you say logically follows, doesn't. There's no reason to believe that. You try to say, "but it is, so it must!" as if that's an argument. Heck, you basically tried to outmaneuver what I was trying to say by making a big point about MORAL free will, and yet people don't really agree on what morality is, or how it should work. Really, the only people who really seem to put forth the idea that morality is objective, rather than subjective, are religious people who have their convenient books to fall back on.

 

[Thief]

I have a sense of humor, I just don't see where the joke was?


No. The teaching is that God Incarnated once, as Jesus, and that was it. We don't even know if extraterrestrial sentient lifeforms have fallen out of grace with God, like humans have. Maybe they are still living in harmony with Him. I wouldn't doubt that God has reached out to them in some way, regardless. We will find out eventually, I guess. The Vatican doesn't have a problem with the idea of alien life. They said that if we meet aliens and if we can communicate with them, we should offer them Baptism.

fallen angels....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

fallen angels....

I don't subscribe to the belief that aliens are demons, sorry.

 

[Unification]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

If anything is supernatural, would nature and the universe be fraudulent?
I like to see things as all naturally super.

There are just different levels of consciousness, energy, matter, and nature. Nature is always latent. Information is always latent. The same things that reside internal to us reside external to us. Consciousness, energy, and matter. We are always using all of our brain, but only a very small amount of its capacity.

The only reason would be so that we can be, experience, explore/discover, live, that we can love and cherish. The creator is us, and we can only create because the creator resides within us. The reason for our existence is us. We would give that consciousness a body to reside in and grow. Mind.

We are free to do and create what we are capable of in the present, with latent potential. Will isn't free, for every willed action there is a reaction, and endless amounts of potential outcomes of the spectrum of life.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There are those who don't want to be restricted by morality (though they rarely understand what it is), or those who want an a la cart morality where morality is determined by transient whim, or by one's religious "authorities".

Ah, you decided to go without the contraction. Good choice.

So that's how you arrive at your major philosophical decisions?

Heck, you basically tried to outmaneuver what I was trying to say by making a big point about MORAL free will, and yet people don't really agree on what morality is, or how it should work. Really, the only people who really seem to put forth the idea that morality is objective, rather than subjective, are religious people who have their convenient books to fall back on.

Yet almost all religions have a form of the Golden Rule at the core of their morality. The problem is that the self-appointed "religious authorities" add all kinds of moral rules (like going to church, contributing money, procreating new members, teaching them to do the same, and that they're going to hell if they don't do all that and a lot more) that support their brand of religious power, which of course they claim was divinely decreed to them to present to us as the only universally correct set of morals--usually leaving the reasonably derived Golden Rule, which is universal, in the dust. And btw, I'm not religious in any way. I just work (not maneuver) to live by a reasonable, simple moral code--which you criticize without even having heard it, apparently.

If anything is supernatural, would nature and the universe be fraudulent?
I like to see things as all naturally super.

No, merely insulating the simple rational, from the super-rational.

There are just different levels of consciousness, energy, matter, and nature. Nature is always latent. Information is always latent. The same things that reside internal to us reside external to us. Consciousness, energy, and matter. We are always using all of our brain, but only a very small amount of its capacity.

I'm not sure what you mean by being latent, but that last sentence is well put.

The reason for our existence is us.

Yes, to test us/ourselves through the moral choices we make in our relationships with others. We are all emotional and we are saved or damned not by those emotions or thoughts, but by our actions. We aren't damned for hating someone, we're damned if we violate their rights. And if there is a judgement, we will be our own judges, seated in the undeniable light of Truth. And the only sentences possible will be life, or oblivion. Why would anyone, even God, substitute Hell for oblivion? Sadistic vindictiveness?

We are free to do and create what we are capable of in the present, with latent potential. Will isn't free, for every willed action there is a reaction, and endless amounts of potential outcomes of the spectrum of life.

Will not being free (having a price, which is being moral with others) doesn't mean we don't have free will.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I find it odd that someone who would happily point out that we couldn't possibly understand a god's motives(with no evidence for this statement, but I digress) has absolutely no problem trying to ascribe understanding to a god's motives. Earlier I noticed you and another basically agreeing with each other that people couldn't really comprehend a god, kind of by default I guess, because a god would, for some reason, have to be so much more than humans. I find this interesting, because it's entirely possible that a creator could actually be quite simple. A creator could be little more than a process, popping out creations with absolutely no thought at all. Or there could be a creator who creates while asleep, unintentionally, and isn't even aware that this bizarre little universe we are in exists. Or there could be a creator who isn't all that intelligent at all, and just made things as best they could. All of these are perfectly valid possibilities and let's be honest, we could have fun coming up with even more. I feel like the point that everyone who disagrees with you is trying to make is that what you say logically follows, doesn't. There's no reason to believe that. You try to say, "but it is, so it must!" as if that's an argument. Heck, you basically tried to outmaneuver what I was trying to say by making a big point about MORAL free will, and yet people don't really agree on what morality is, or how it should work. Really, the only people who really seem to put forth the idea that morality is objective, rather than subjective, are religious people who have their convenient books to fall back on.

True, the universe could have blundered into existence for no particular reason, from a great cosmic lotto tumbler that also materialized accidentally. That's difficult to disprove.

But the majority of humanity deduces God as the least improbable explanation, while acknowledging the element of faith, that it can't be proven.

 

[Thief]

I don't subscribe to the belief that aliens are demons, sorry.

I was responding to the notion.....they once held position in heaven.

having held such position....they would be ET by nature....not of this world
having fallen from grace....they are demonic.

 

[dust1n]

So that's how you arrive at your major philosophical decisions?

"If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so"

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't follow. Nothing about a supernatural consciousness implies only one possible reasoning.

 

[Thief]

"If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so"

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't follow. Nothing about a supernatural consciousness implies only one possible reasoning.

one singularity.....one Cause.

 

[dust1n]

one singularity.....one Cause.

Again, it doesn't even necessarily follow there is one reason, let alone one specific cause or justification for god to create the world...

 

[Demonslayer]

There's an awful lot of empty space out there for me to believe God made the entire universe for some hairless pink and brown monkeys to run around sinning on a tiny dust speck. Why make like 30 bazillion galaxies if it's all about the human beings? It's beyond egotistical to think a super-intellegent cosmic overlord created the entire universe so we could watch Dancing with the Stars.

 

[Thief]

Again, it doesn't even necessarily follow there is one reason, let alone one specific cause or justification for god to create the world...

I lean to the idea....I AM!.....is a statement, first and foremost.
The initial proclamation.

I happen to believe it is synonymous to....Let there be light.

Light as the result of the expanding singularity....

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

True, the universe could have blundered into existence for no particular reason, from a great cosmic lotto tumbler that also materialized accidentally. That's difficult to disprove.

But the majority of humanity deduces God as the least improbable explanation, while acknowledging the element of faith, that it can't be proven.

There's no theory that can offer any evidence either way. People fear thunder and floods and imagine some gods somewhere are out to get them. The idea probably came from the creep that became a shaman.

"If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so"

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't follow. Nothing about a supernatural consciousness implies only one possible reasoning.

Not one possible reasoning, one possible motive. I ask again, what other reason could there be that an omnipotent God wouldn't accomplish immediately--assuming that God, judging by the universe is rational and not petty?

There's an awful lot of empty space out there for me to believe God made the entire universe for some hairless pink and brown monkeys to run around sinning on a tiny dust speck. Why make like 30 bazillion galaxies if it's all about the human beings? It's beyond egotistical to think a super-intellegent cosmic overlord created the entire universe so we could watch Dancing with the Stars.

That's part of the free will that this universe was (ostensibly) created for, the freedom to waste our lives. RE: my definition of freedom--the ability to be as dumb as you want.....on your own dime.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

People fear thunder and floods and imagine some gods somewhere are out to get them. The idea probably came from the creep that became a shaman.
.

Unfortunately the age old superstition that all bad weather is punishment for our behavior, has always dogged humanity and always will, and there will never be a shortage of creeps to accept the appeasing sacrifices.

it's called anthropogenic climate change these days, but it has been called many things, it was called global cooling when I grew up.

 

[dust1n]

Not one possible reasoning, one possible motive.

I can think of many possible reasoning and motives. Your suggestion is by one of many. Such an agency could have created sentient beings for no moral purpose. Could have created the universe for something he really likes that we are unaware of. Etc.

I ask again, what other reason could there be that an omnipotent God wouldn't accomplish immediately--

He may have already accomplished any anticipated goal long ago. He may not been attempting to reach any goal. He may be incapable of doing so for reasons not yet understood, etc. etc...

assuming that God, judging by the universe is rational and not petty?

Why would I make that assumption?

 

[Emi]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

I think that purely depends on what one believes in. Why do you think that is the only reason the alleged Creator would create the universe?
Given your beliefs, do you believe there are multiple beings outside of Earth with moral free will as well?

 

[Unification]

There are those who don't want to be restricted by morality (though they rarely understand what it is), or those who want an a la cart morality where morality is determined by transient whim, or by one's religious "authorities".


So that's how you arrive at your major philosophical decisions?



Yet almost all religions have a form of the Golden Rule at the core of their morality. The problem is that the self-appointed "religious authorities" add all kinds of moral rules (like going to church, contributing money, procreating new members, teaching them to do the same, and that they're going to hell if they don't do all that and a lot more) that support their brand of religious power, which of course they claim was divinely decreed to them to present to us as the only universally correct set of morals--usually leaving the reasonably derived Golden Rule, which is universal, in the dust. And btw, I'm not religious in any way. I just work (not maneuver) to live by a reasonable, simple moral code--which you criticize without even having heard it, apparently.



No, merely insulating the simple rational, from the super-rational.



I'm not sure what you mean by being latent, but that last sentence is well put.



Yes, to test us/ourselves through the moral choices we make in our relationships with others. We are all emotional and we are saved or damned not by those emotions or thoughts, but by our actions. We aren't damned for hating someone, we're damned if we violate their rights. And if there is a judgement, we will be our own judges, seated in the undeniable light of Truth. And the only sentences possible will be life, or oblivion. Why would anyone, even God, substitute Hell for oblivion? Sadistic vindictiveness?



Will not being free (having a price, which is being moral with others) doesn't mean we don't have free will.

It's a long conscious process to have freewill in mind, that few find. We are influenced by our external environment and by external minds of others. Under control, or the laws and lower constitutions of others. When does it then become, we are free to choose to be under control...negating that personal freedom of choice. We "think" we are making our own choices, but we are not, everyone and everything external to us are making our choices for us, influencing our moves, and we feed into it without awareness. It's so scribed into the minds of human beings that they have to do this, or have to do that, or have to believe this, or have to have knowledge of that, etc. It is all vain, to please and impress others, the worry and fear of what others will think, the emotional need to fit in, follow the crowd or masses. To the point one doesn't even have freewill anymore, they can't think for themselves or realize that their external environment and others have control over them and determine them. Slaves to systems, ideologies, theologies, traditions, limitations, fear of being judged, fear of what others think, etc. Was it someone's initial free choice to be enslaved? Of course, but then they gave up their own rights and freedom of choice.

When we are set free from all of that in mind, we then have freewill in mind, and being peaceable with others is automatic and natural nature. Because it's inner and higher nature.

Until then, we are just enslaved puppets doing everything for reasons external to ourselves while having no control of our internal selves or knowing ourselves.

Even after we become aware, we realize that we are not in control of anything external to us. We are in control of our own inner nature, not external nature. . And even internally, we are limited. The realization that everything is balanced, just, fair and everything happening external to us are just fleeting moments popping in and out of existence.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Yet almost all religions have a form of the Golden Rule at the core of their morality. The problem is that the self-appointed "religious authorities" add all kinds of moral rules (like going to church, contributing money, procreating new members, teaching them to do the same, and that they're going to hell if they don't do all that and a lot more) that support their brand of religious power, which of course they claim was divinely decreed to them to present to us as the only universally correct set of morals--usually leaving the reasonably derived Golden Rule, which is universal, in the dust. And btw, I'm not religious in any way. I just work (not maneuver) to live by a reasonable, simple moral code--which you criticize without even having heard it, apparently.

Okay, I'm gonna be clear right away, that I wasn't in any way criticizing your moral code. As you pointed out, I don't know what your moral code is. I was actually simply pointing out that people don't agree about how morality works, by explaining how many religious people believe that morality is objective, because their god made the rules and that somehow makes them simple truth, whereas others believe that morality is subjective. The whole point of explaining that was to point out to you that people don't even agree on the terms you are using, which makes it a little hard to say that we have moral free will. It means different things to different people.

Now, I'm gonna list off all the assumptions you made with first your original post, and then your response when asked why it logically followed. This matters, because I, and many others as well, pretty much tend to write off an argument when assumptions are made in them. It's why arguments made for the existence of god tend to be written off pretty quickly by me, because an argument based off of an assumption, or which rests it's points on assumptions, are generally meaningless. So, your op was this "If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices." These are the assumptions I found.

1. You assume that there was only one reason for a god, or whatever you wish to call it, to make the universe.
2. You assume that this god did in fact create us. While we would not exist without the universe(or would we?) there is no reason to believe that the god who created the universe by default made us.
3. You assume to know what moral free will is.
4. You assume we have moral free will.
5. You assume that the god doesn't influence our moral choices. You might say that it couldn't influence us and us still have free will, but that doesn't really make sense, because if that were true, it could reasonably be argued that because ANYONE can influence me, then I have no free will.

Now, we'll move on to your explanation. It was "God could have done, could do, anything else instantly, instead of going to all the trouble of putting us in this 13 billion year cocoon to isolate us from It's influence on our free will."

1. You assume that this creator has omnipotence. Omnipotence, as others in this thread have mentioned, isn't necessary to create the universe. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe, so infinite power wouldn't be required to create it.
2. This is a bit of quibbling, I suppose, but I feel as if even if the creator did have omnipotence, that wouldn't mean that it could do literally anything else. On paper, sure, this creator could do anything that was logically consistent(or even things that aren't, who really knows) but there could be things it couldn't do, not because it couldn't, but because it simply wouldn't. Kind of like you might say you can't rape someone. Not because you aren't physically capable, but because you aren't mentally capable of such a thing. You might rebut with something along the lines of "but god could change it's own personality to be able to do it" and I'd respond with "sure, but why would it want to? If you could make yourself okay with raping people, would you?"


So, these are all the assumptions you made when stating your argument, and the assumptions of your response when asked why your original argument was logical. Now, I've laid out these assumptions for you, not just to be a troll and point out your mistakes, but to help you make a better argument, if you so choose. Essentially, if you are still convinced of your logic and wish to convince us that you are correct, it might help if you rectify some of these assumptions. I hope you take up the challenge, as i'm interested in where you would take this.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

There's not even any reasonable evidence that God exists

Correct. Only unreasonable beliefs regarding unsubstantiated claims.

Note: I'm going to feel compelled to remind you of this first concession of yours throughout my comments that follow. Just so you're forewarned.

... so I can hardly claim anything about God as a fact.

That's another refreshing concession on your part. And I would tend to agree with you. We cannot know anything about God as fact.

...

Let's set aside these two opening remarks of yours. I tend to agree with them and there's not much more to be done with them. Shall we move along to the meat-'n-potatoes of your post?

I'm just saying that if It does

Given your first two statements, isn't what you're essentially now doing simply (if I may quote Sam Harris) playing tennis without the net?

It could do anything ELSE instantly.

Or, It couldn't. Right?

Given that we know nothing about God (see your concession above), isn't it just as reasonable to admit that it's entirely possible that the only thing God could do was create this universe? How can you attribute characteristics to an unknown entity for which you have no reasonable evidence? Please explain how that works.

Why not this? Because we, with our free will, are the only reason God has to hide any evidence of Itself from us behind 13 billion years and a Big Bang.

Let me see if I can accurately paraphrase what you're saying:

"There's no evidence that God exists ... and I know nothing factual about such a hypothetical being or beings ... now please step aside while I speculate wildly regarding the specific characteristics of this nonexistent being about which I know nothing."

Is that accurate?

There are several quality adjectival phrases we might employ to describe what you're doing. I'll leave the specifics to your imagination.

And what's your point about Keira?

That she's totally smokin' hot.

And given (see your above concession) that we know nothing about Alleged-To-Exist, Hypothetical Creator Beings, isn't it reasonable to include Keira Knightley as (potentially) the sole possible reason that an Alleged-To-Exist, Hypothetical Creator Being might have opted to create the universe?

We all know she couldn't be a goddess no matter how much she might look like one, because there can only be One God

I'm going to ignore this "there can only be One God" lapse on your part. You've already conceded that:

1.) You aren't convinced that a god or gods exist.
2.) We know nothing factual about the subject matter anyway.

which is necessarily a gender neutral term, which is why I refer to God as It.

If "god" is a gender neutral term, please explain the word "goddess."

Thanks!