We can know God if he is interventionist, but as he takes no part in society we cannot know him/her/It. 
I don't.Gotta disagree.
If you suspect god does not exist, then you cannot grant any of its properties. What kind of logic would that be? The universe MUST have had a creator is a logical assumption? Only on that basis can you grant anything about a living god.(Despite suspecting he does not exist, I can still follow the logic involved in the nature of a supreme being.)
If I have to grant anything then that means it is my judgement. Judgement decides if I grant a truth or not.If we are to grant the notion that God created the universe as well as humans, then indeed, he is above judgement.
Any science fiction story is true by that logic.God is not merely the Biggest King of All Kings; he isn't even In a Class Of His Own; the universe literally is his possession. That has no precedent or equal.
That is if you grant that God exists AND is a motivated intelligence and cares what you think. You among everything else in the universe.We as humans might decide what we consider good or smart or sane, but such a creator is not subject to that.
Correct, but ants do exist and have been a successful species for billions of years. They don't believe or rely on God to live and survive natural selection. Which proves that all living things can exist without needing to grant that existence requires a God. What requires a God to exist?I was considering an analogy with ants judging a human, (how could ants possibly judge our actions?) but I quickly realized that there is no - there can be no - analogy for the creator of existence. Any such comparison is simply inapplicable.
Donkeys are fertile.Natural selection states that a biological entity must survive to procreational age to pass on it's genes. Donkeys are infertile!
The problem occurs with cross-breeding.The donkey or ass (Equus africanus asinus)[1][2] is a domesticated member of the horse family, Equidae. The wild ancestor of the donkey is the African wild ass, E. africanus. The donkey has been used as a working animal for at least 5000 years. There are more than 40 million donkeys in the world, mostly in underdeveloped countries, where they are used principally as draught or pack animals. Working donkeys are often associated with those living at or below subsistence levels. Small numbers of donkeys are kept for breeding or as pets in developed countries.
Moreover, not all "hinnies" or "mules" are sterile.Donkey hybrids. ... A male horse can be crossed with a female donkey (jenny) to produce a hinny. Horse-donkey hybrids are almost always sterile because horses have 64 chromosomes whereas donkeys have 62, producing offspring with 63 chromosomes. Mules are much more common than hinnies.
However, its a mathematical problem. It has nothing to do with god, but with chromosome count. We discovered that we could cross-breed horses with donkeys or vice versa and create a more versatile pack animal than either donkey or horse alone. But in doing so the chromosome count becomes disordered and non-functional. But the utility of mules far outstrips the mating problem, which humans can control.A female mule that has estrus cycles and thus, in theory, could carry a fetus, is called a "molly" or "Molly mule", though the term is sometimes used to refer to female mules in general. Pregnancy is rare, but can occasionally occur naturally as well as through embryo transfer.
This is false.I don't.
Most fairytales are logical if you grant that fairies exist.
If you suspect god does not exist, then you cannot grant any of its properties.
No, but they must be logical to be true....It does not require the thing to be true in order to be logical. That's what premises are.
That doesn't negate what I said though. Nor does it help your assertion: "If you suspect god does not exist, then you cannot grant any of its properties." which is still false.No, but they must be logical to be true....Therein lies the problem. God is an illogical concept, IMO.
I would argue this.No, but they must be logical to be true....![]()
But they cannot be extant without being logical.That doesn't negate what I said though. Nor does it help your assertion: "If you suspect god does not exist, then you cannot grant any of its properties." which is still false.
Concepts and systems can be logically consistent whether or not they are extant.
Why do you assume these concept to be illogical? If we grant that all universal phenomena must be logical in essence, then it must be a human shortcoming that we cannot identify the logic contained in the function, no?I would argue this. QM and spooky action are not logical, but they are true.
David Bohm's Holoflux, Holomovement, and Holographic Paradigm.
David Bohm did not propose a holographic universe. ... Paavo Pylkkänen provides an excellent summary of the utility of the hologram analogy in the context of David Bohm's work:
http://dbohm.com/david-bohm-holoflux-holomovement.htmlIn contrast, the hologram suggests that we can easily conceive how the whole can be enfolded in each part, and likewise how the part can be enfolded all over the whole. This can encourage us to make the modal assumption that there can be physical phenomena that are not constituted of localized elements but that instead the whole can be enfolded in each part and the part enfolded in the whole. And finally, given the experimental evidence coming from quantum and relativity physics, we could with some justification make the metaphysical assumption that some such holistic order actually prevails as the most fundamental order of the world, as it is known today.
95% of all living things that have ever existed are now extinct. Everything we see is a result of evolution (change) and natural selection (of greatest survival ability).Nevertheless, some animals do not survive to procreational age.
After mating with the strongest drone!...also there are drone ants and bees: only the queen reproduces.![]()
Well...But they cannot be extant without being logical.
You are begging the question. If you start with the premise that it must be logical to exist, then you reach a foregone conclusion.Why do you assume these concept to be illogical? If we grant that all universal phenomena must be logical in essence, then it must be a human shortcoming that we cannot identify the logic contained in the function, no?
If it's as yet unexplainable, then we can't know if it's logical.Seems to me Entanglement is a perfectly logical state, if as yet unexplainable.
About what? That there are phenomena which don't seem to be logical? Then lets find out why, instead of proposing that they don't need to be logical because they might be willed by a force which lies outside the universe and utterly beyond any observation forever?Well...
You are begging the question. If you start with the premise that it must be logical to exist, then you reach a foregone conclusion.
This is true, but every observation is symbolized by humans. And this apparent obstacle is present only in a few very very small or very very large phenomena. That does not invalidate the observation, it just makes our observations inadequate for the task. Every time we provide proof by observation and experiment, we are doing something right, IMO.Logic itself is a human process; we come up with the ifs and thens. And right now, our thens do not follow from our ifs.
I agree and it would be unreasonable to expect us to know how everything works in the entire universe from quantum to supernovae in the short period we have had to study this inconceivably large object. There are areas which we have not been able to study in depth yet, although we are beginning to find the many different ways universal information can be shared and be causal to consistent effects. At levels above quantum logic seems very much the norm. That should be an important indicator.I grant that they will some day be explainable, and therefore the logic will become apparent, but for now, they do not follow any logic we understand.
I agree human knowledge is still very much incomplete. But everything we can explain exhibits a logical principle.If it's as yet unexplainable, then we can't know if it's logical.
Therefore?We can know God if he is interventionist, but as he takes no part in society we cannot know him/her/It.![]()
I thought God saw "that it was good" He must have had satisfaction, no?Therefore WE have everything while it has nothing.
Wrong. God does not need light, physical living things do.God lived in the dark: it could not see because no-one could see it.
Why?It means God existed before anyone (or anything) else. It created all things.
Reproduction relies on compatible sets of chromosomes. It is one of the rules of natural selection of mutated chromosomes. Mutation usually involves a very small change, but occasionally a major mutation may be the start of a new species. The Human chromosome 2 may be such a mutative gene. Note: it is now the second largest chromosome in human DNASo, some drones do not reproduce!
According to researcher Jacob W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.
I suppose he could make up reasons, but that wouldn't make them good.
So you don't believe in the flood so you think everyone else that does is stupid. I wouldn't want to have a pint with a fool like you.You mean a non-existent "deity" saved humanity from a non-existent flood?
Yay! That shows exactly how "good" he is/ was.