Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   Why does God need to exist? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/90479-why-does-god-need-exist.html)

Pet_Sounds 11-01-2017 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1888517)

I might one of these days. I've already come to the conclusion that God as conceived of by religion doesn't exist, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wpnfire (Post 1888589)
He doesn't.

According to Einstein, past present and future are all happening at once. IMO, that hasn't been ruled out.

As far as I know, that's still up for interpretation. What Einstein really said was this:

Quote:

That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
That was in a letter to a friend, not a research paper. I'm not well versed enough on GR to comment on what it implies about time.

[MERIT] 11-01-2017 08:48 PM

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems

Kurt Godel's Completeness Theorems

riseagainstrocks 11-02-2017 11:36 AM

There is no compelling argument for theism. There just isn't. Religious apologist skirt around the following:
- The problem of evil
- Competing and contradictory revelations
- Suspension of natural law (for the occurrence of "miracles")

I really don't care if someone is a Christian, Muslim, etc. until they start foisting their religious beliefs on me. Big difference between myself and some of the more... militant non-believers here. I sympathize with their position but don't share the fervor. Anyway, let's turn to the thread topic.

What Pet Sounds appears to be saying is what degree of deism do we potentially live under; do I have that right? Does the 'watchmaker' live inside the watch? If so, I would imagine him/her/it to be quite impotent once the big work of setting up the cosmos was completed. Outside of current technological limitation preventing perfect knowledge of the very small and very large, every phenomenon witnessed by humans has a naturalistic, deterministic cause: strike a match, produce a flame. So it begs the question, why is he/she/it just sitting around?

If the 'watchmaker' lives outside of the proverbial watch, then why consider him/her/it at all? Do we treat the architects of our homes with reverence? Do you find yourself praying to your parents? The 'god' you would be describing would be indistinguishable from empty space.

The only "wrinkle" I can see with how I approach this problem is the power of collective belief. Individual 'ideas' - as in a incorporeal representation of something - aren't any more or less real than any other. "God" is real because several billion people believe it is so and are motivated to action, some good, some bad, by this belief.

So:
Tangible, corporeal, "real" God - no.
Figurative, metaphorical God - yes.

I like to think about it like the Warp in Warhammer 40k. Emotions are reflected in the 'psychic ocean' of warp space, coalescing into 'deities' that are essentially manifestations of mankind's hopes, dreams, fears, and hates. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

Pet_Sounds 11-02-2017 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [MERIT] (Post 1889758)

I'm familiar with those. How do they relate to the thread topic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks (Post 1889872)
There is no compelling argument for theism. There just isn't. Religious apologist skirt around the following:
- The problem of evil
- Competing and contradictory revelations
- Suspension of natural law (for the occurrence of "miracles")

I really don't care if someone is a Christian, Muslim, etc. until they start foisting their religious beliefs on me. Big difference between myself and some of the more... militant non-believers here. I sympathize with their position but don't share the fervor. Anyway, let's turn to the thread topic.

What Pet Sounds appears to be saying is what degree of deism do we potentially live under; do I have that right?

More or less correct. Essentially, my point is that we're in a closed system dictated by physical law, and because of our limited intelligence we're incapable of understanding a potential "meta-system" which could involve a God. In such a meta-system, the principles of causality and "existence" might not apply, meaning that God doesn't need to "exist" as we define the word in order to be real.

Quote:

Does the 'watchmaker' live inside the watch? If so, I would imagine him/her/it to be quite impotent once the big work of setting up the cosmos was completed. Outside of current technological limitation preventing perfect knowledge of the very small and very large, every phenomenon witnessed by humans has a naturalistic, deterministic cause: strike a match, produce a flame. So it begs the question, why is he/she/it just sitting around?

If the 'watchmaker' lives outside of the proverbial watch, then why consider him/her/it at all? Do we treat the architects of our homes with reverence? Do you find yourself praying to your parents? The 'god' you would be describing would be indistinguishable from empty space.

The only "wrinkle" I can see with how I approach this problem is the power of collective belief. Individual 'ideas' - as in a incorporeal representation of something - aren't any more or less real than any other. "God" is real because several billion people believe it is so and are motivated to action, some good, some bad, by this belief.

So:
Tangible, corporeal, "real" God - no.
Figurative, metaphorical God - yes.

I like to think about it like the Warp in Warhammer 40k. Emotions are reflected in the 'psychic ocean' of warp space, coalescing into 'deities' that are essentially manifestations of mankind's hopes, dreams, fears, and hates. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
Agreed. Whether or not my proposed God exists has no effect on anything—it's just a philosophical concept.

BloodFoxTK 11-17-2017 09:43 AM

to answer the question "does god exist", we would first need to define exactly what one would classify as "god".

if we're talking the biblical definition of god, then i would have to say no.

to me, insufficient evidence has been shown to prove this specific god.

and i've not encountered anyone willing to bear the burden of proof that comes with the claim that god exists.

not saying there is no one that is willing to do so, but i've not met anyone willing to.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:37 PM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.