Define God Thread

[Keith&Co.]

something that scientifically makes sense, unless some scientist thinks we come from nothing.

What scientist thinks we came from nothing?

 

[blastula]

I can't define God due to the lack of knowing his origin.

God's origin is mythology.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just heard Dan Harmon on Harmontown make an interesting new definition of God. I'm paraphrasing

"We're always striving towards perfection. That's why we go to space and invent new stuff and always want the new coolest stuff. God is an embodiement of the idea of perfection".

But perhaps he wasn't the first to say it? Thomas Aquinas rings a bell. But the difference is that Dan Harmon said it like an atheist would.

Anselm of Bec. If there are things that are good, there are things better than good, and the most good of all is God, the very epitome of good. Aquinas took this and made it one of his 5 proofs, argument by degrees. Of course one can always adapt this to other of God's supposed attributes. Perfect being theology.

If God is the personification of perfection, and (as everyone knows) nobody's perfect, then we can conclude that God does not exist.

Not at all. We can conclude that God is all spirit because He is no body.

So, indeed, no body is perfect.

That's where the saying comes from, only the original meaning was lost by generations of those imperfect beings that humans are with their hairy and smelling bodies.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

something that scientifically makes sense, unless some scientist thinks we come from nothing.

What scientist thinks we came from nothing?

I don't know if Krauss is still considered a scientist, but he famously equivocated something with a new type of nothing (the something is a nothing with properties that cause stuff).

 

[blastula]

Yes, but Humbleman seemed to be talking about origin of humans, not the universe. And science doesn't say there was ever a metaphysical nothing* anyway. No need to come from nothing for origin of the universe or life.

*the theist's nothing includes a god hanging out there somehow

 

[bilby]

Yes, but Humbleman seemed to be talking about origin of humans, not the universe. And science doesn't say there was ever a metaphysical nothing* anyway. No need to come from nothing for origin of the universe or life.

*the theist's nothing includes a god hanging out there somehow

Indeed, the idea that something has always existed seems to me to be strengthened considerably by the fact that everyone who argues the contrary seems unable to do so without including a thing that existed when there was nothing (whether they choose a God of some kind, or some variation on mathematics, logic, time, or quantum uncertainty).

If your argument that there was a beginning to everything is dependent on there being something that pre-dates everything, then it's a self refuting argument. It can only ever be a case of special pleading.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm pretty sure people know that existence existed before it did.

 

[Speakpigeon]

something that scientifically makes sense, unless some scientist thinks we come from nothing.

What scientist thinks we came from nothing?

I don't know if Krauss is still considered a scientist, but he famously equivocated something with a new type of nothing (the something is a nothing with properties that cause stuff).

And that was really Krauss.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Indeed, the idea that something has always existed seems to me to be strengthened considerably by the fact that everyone who argues the contrary seems unable to do so without including a thing that existed when there was nothing (whether they choose a God of some kind, or some variation on mathematics, logic, time, or quantum uncertainty).

Everyone? Not me, gov'.

I'm on record for saying that it is perfectly logical to think of reality as having existed only for a finite amount of time without having been caused by anything at all. Spontaneous appearance if you like.

It's perfectly logical because nothing really means nothing. And in this case, nothing means there's no prior constraints on how things are allowed to come into existence. So, no constraints, therefore spontaneous appearance is perfectly logical.

Quite simple, really.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

I don't know if Krauss is still considered a scientist, but he famously equivocated something with a new type of nothing (the something is a nothing with properties that cause stuff).

And that was really Krauss.
EB

Or someone else with nothing in their brain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Or someone else with nothing in their brain.

Yeah, but if it's like Krauss then having nothing would mean they would in fact have something.
EB

 

[blastula]

Indeed, the idea that something has always existed seems to me to be strengthened considerably by the fact that everyone who argues the contrary seems unable to do so without including a thing that existed when there was nothing (whether they choose a God of some kind, or some variation on mathematics, logic, time, or quantum uncertainty).

Everyone? Not me, gov'.

I'm on record for saying that it is perfectly logical to think of reality as having existed only for a finite amount of time without having been caused by anything at all. Spontaneous appearance if you like.

It's perfectly logical because nothing really means nothing. And in this case, nothing means there's no prior constraints on how things are allowed to come into existence. So, no constraints, therefore spontaneous appearance is perfectly logical.

Quite simple, really.

If nothing can mean anything, then sure. But your nothing is a state of something where spontaneous events can occur.

 

[Kharakov]

Or someone else with nothing in their brain.

Yeah, but if it's like Krauss then having nothing would mean they would in fact have something.
EB

Well, yeah. If you redefine words to mean their opposite, like Krauss or Run DMC, you're basically obfuscating what you say.

Not bad meaning bad, but Bad meaning Good. Or not nothing meaning nothing, but nothing meaning something. I wonder if he listened to Run rock rhymes?

 

[fromderinside]

Think of a bacterium believing in God. If you aren't convinced by that little problem then you are really going to hate it when you finally discover there is no Peter at the pearly gates or whatever else serves as afterlife admission. I'm pretty sure that white or black aura people are seeing is their minds being erased as blood stops flowing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Don't be so pessimistic!

Or is that you being optimistic?
EB

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Indeed, the idea that something has always existed seems to me to be strengthened considerably by the fact that everyone who argues the contrary seems unable to do so without including a thing that existed when there was nothing (whether they choose a God of some kind, or some variation on mathematics, logic, time, or quantum uncertainty).

Everyone? Not me, gov'.

I'm on record for saying that it is perfectly logical to think of reality as having existed only for a finite amount of time without having been caused by anything at all. Spontaneous appearance if you like.

It's perfectly logical because nothing really means nothing. And in this case, nothing means there's no prior constraints on how things are allowed to come into existence. So, no constraints, therefore spontaneous appearance is perfectly logical.

Quite simple, really.

If nothing can mean anything, then sure. But your nothing is a state of something where spontaneous events can occur.

Right. A quantity of zero universes can occur where a universe may come into existence. To have a quantity of zero you must have something. Gods aren't even a quantity of zero. If they were they'd at least be something.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Indeed, the idea that something has always existed seems to me to be strengthened considerably by the fact that everyone who argues the contrary seems unable to do so without including a thing that existed when there was nothing (whether they choose a God of some kind, or some variation on mathematics, logic, time, or quantum uncertainty).

Everyone? Not me, gov'.

I'm on record for saying that it is perfectly logical to think of reality as having existed only for a finite amount of time without having been caused by anything at all. Spontaneous appearance if you like.

It's perfectly logical because nothing really means nothing. And in this case, nothing means there's no prior constraints on how things are allowed to come into existence. So, no constraints, therefore spontaneous appearance is perfectly logical.

Quite simple, really.

If nothing can mean anything, then sure. But your nothing is a state of something where spontaneous events can occur.

No.

Yours perhaps, not mine.

My notion of nothingness is not that of any state. 'Nothing' really means no thing. So no state, no anything. So spontaneous events could not occur there because there's no there to begin with.

Quite simple really.
EB

 

[blastula]

Sounds like you're contradicting yourself.

It's perfectly logical because nothing really means nothing. And in this case, nothing means there's no prior constraints on how things are allowed to come into existence. So, no constraints, therefore spontaneous appearance is perfectly logical.

vs

My notion of nothingness is not that of any state. 'Nothing' really means no thing. So no state, no anything. So spontaneous events could not occur there because there's no there to begin with.

First you said nothingness is compatible with spontaneous event, but now you're saying it's not.

 

[Kharakov]

If nothing can mean anything, then sure. But your nothing is a state of something where spontaneous events can occur.

No.

Yours perhaps, not mine.

My notion of nothingness is not that of any state. 'Nothing' really means no thing. So no state, no anything. So spontaneous events could not occur there because there's no there to begin with.

Quite simple really.
EB

What a beautiful description of nothing. Something that doesn't exist. If only people understood what nothing was, the wouldn't say it is something that causes stuff.

Methinks they are confused by there ideas of nothing causing much ado about it. Not that I'm much one for Shakespeare.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If nothing can mean anything, then sure. But your nothing is a state of something where spontaneous events can occur.

No.

Yours perhaps, not mine.

My notion of nothingness is not that of any state. 'Nothing' really means no thing. So no state, no anything. So spontaneous events could not occur there because there's no there to begin with.

Quite simple really.
EB

That would mean that nothing can only happen where there is no reality.

How is that a useful thought?