Workable systems of god

[Mind Over Matter]

Does anyone have any really workable theories of how god could exist? Something that can't be torn down in 5 posts by the frequenters of this forum?

I am not looking for pronouncements of belief. This is 'General Philosophy'.

I am looking for purely conjectural ideas that hold up to logical and scientific scrutiny.

There are two forms I've seen
1. Everything caused event or thing has a cause
2. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes
3. This requires an Uncaused Cause.

and
1. Everything caused event or thing has a cause
2. The universe has a cause.
3. This requires a Creator / "Causer."

 

[Mind Over Matter]

My own proof!

AXIOMS:
1. The universe began with the big bang (BB).
2. There is only one universe, the one in which we exist.
3. The universe is finite and bounded.
4. Every effect has a cause.

LOGICAL DEDUCTION:
A. Nothingness exists
B. God is nothingness,
C. Therefore God exists

Argument for premise A,
Given premises 1 and 2, nothing (or nothingness) existed prior to the BB.

Argument for premise B:
Theorem 1: Given premise 1: Since time began with the BB, the Before/Beyond is eternal (without time)

Theorem 2: Given premise 1: There was no space, time, matter, and energy prior to the BB, the Before/Beyond was formless, therefore immutable.

Theorem 3: Given premise 3: The same nothingness that existed before the BB necessarily still exists beyond our finite universe.

Theorem 4: Given premise 3: The Before/Beyond is necessarily infinite

Theorem 5: Given premise 4: Whatever is possible cannot be created; it must pre-exist actuality; the Before/Beyond is all possibility; therefore the Before/Beyond is omnipotent

Theorem 6: Given theorem 4: The infinite nothingness, the substance of the Before/Beyond, is prescient; it knows all possibilities, and hence is omniscient

Theorem 7: Given premise 4 and theorem 1: The cause of the universe necessarily inhered in the Before/Beyond; it is the source of creation
Since the Before/Beyond is infinite, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and the Creator; God is the Before/Beyond; infinite nothingness is the substance of God.

To deny God's existence would require you to show proof

 

[Dywyddyr]

There are two forms I've seen
1. Every caused event or thing has a cause
2. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes
3. Oh wait, point 2 is possibly wrong.

and
1. Everything caused event or thing has a cause
2. The universe has a cause.
3. We don't know exactly what that cause is. (Yet, possibly).

Corrected.

 

[Dywyddyr]

My own proof!

AXIOMS:
1. The universe began with the big bang (BB).
2. There is only one universe, the one in which we exist.
3. The universe is finite and bounded.
4. Every effect has a cause.

All this "proves" is that there was a cause for the universe. Some cause: nature unspecified. Is this god? Define god in this context and explain why it requires worship anymore than, say, a billiard cue that causes a ball to start rolling... Why is it "god"? or are you using some weird definition of same?

LOGICAL DEDUCTION:
A. Nothingness exists
B. God is nothingness,
C. Therefore God exists

1 Is an assumption.
2 Is merely assigning a name to that assumption.
3 Is simply tautological: it's exactly what you stated in point 1.

Since time began with the BB, the Before/Beyond is eternal (without time)

Hmm, assumption.

the Before/Beyond was formless, therefore immutable.

Supposition.

The same nothingness that existed before the BB necessarily still exists beyond our finite universe.

Even worse supposition.

The Before/Beyond is necessarily infinite

Supposition piled on supposition.

Whatever is possible cannot be created; it must pre-exist actuality

Great! So where's the Wrurgle Beast? You know, the one actually ate the entire universe last week?

the Before/Beyond is all possibility; therefore the Before/Beyond is omnipotent

Oh. How do you know? Wrurgle Beast a bit late, is he?

The infinite nothingness, the substance of the Before/Beyond, is prescient; it knows all possibilities, and hence is omniscient

What? How do these follow logically?

To deny God's existence would require you to show proof

Or simply point out the leaps of faith you've presented as "logic".

 

[deathrhapsody]

The classic argument against "I" are in no way able to debunk the fundamental truth revealed in Cogito Ergo Sum; that is simply put; "thought" exist. By doubting/concerning of one's own existence - one is then has achieved self awareness and can then establish with absolute certainty that one exist, regardless in whatever form one could be. This is the first fundamental truth.

As for the needlessly pedantic and misunderstood conclusion that Cartesian Dualism isn't Logic, this can be avoided by simply reading my previous posts. Rather than claiming Cartesian Dualism is Logic, I was clearly referring the discussion as ; within the logical construct of Cartesian Dualism - as stated in the text "Remember, we are arguing from Cartesian Dualism logic".

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh dear. You went away and I thought it was to learn something.
And then you come back and make a claim (without evidence or substantiation) that is directly contradicted by the post you're presumably replying to (post #100).

So much for "fundamental truths". And "no assumptions" for that matter.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I read SEP regularly.

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

 

[deathrhapsody]

'Validity' is a logical term that that applies to arguments (such as arguments for and against the existence of god), not to objects themselves (god).

Rather needlessly pedantic, when what I meant was the exact same thing. But allow me to increase the sophisticated show off by saying that Validity is a logical terms that apply to not only argument, but also formula and statement.

Clearly, when I wrote "God is logically valid", I was referring to argument for God within the context of this thread. But judging by your standard, I will try to increase the unnecessary verbose just to avoid myself from stating what I meant twice.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

And if you start with the ridiculous you just come across as ridiculous. Better, surely, to make your point succinctly?

What is rediculous?- The only deity I see is me, therefore the universe serves me. We all think It and speak it as if it does, but what is true is we have control over it. We could blow it all to pieces in a manner of hours. Make it fly till it finds the toaster on Mars.

So you can fly unaided? You can travel back in time? You can suddenly speak every language on the planet?
Impressive.
When you speak either I'll let you know.

We have already merged humans with machines. How long before Rosetta Stone is downloaded onto some type of supernatural computer and connected to our minds. -How much knowledge would be safe to transmit at a time?

You can't fly completely unaided unless you managed to transform your consciousness into a different state. Dreams are one way, but we don't want you to be asleep for most of your natural life. Trade consciousness with a bird of prey.

The "Ultimate Challenge", I guess you could say, is to find a natural way to travel thought time. If we can ever manage to reverse the directionality of all subatomic particles in our extension of the universe, then sure it is possible. That also means light is going the opposite direction tho. I know nothing that controls light at that level, therefore this idea is impractical at this time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

What is rediculous?

Too tempting...

The only deity I see is me

Then you have a strange definition of "deity".

therefore the universe serves me

This would be false.

We all think It and speak it as if it does

As would this.

but what is true is we have control over it. We could blow it all to pieces in a manner of hours.

And both of these.

We have already merged humans with machines.

To what extent and how effectively?

How long before Rosetta Stone is downloaded onto some type of supernatural computer and connected to our minds

A very long time. Who do you think is working on developing a "supernatural computer"? And what exactly is one of those?

You can't fly completely unaided unless you managed to transform your consciousness into a different state

False.

Dreams are one way

Um, no. Even when dreaming you don't fly.

Trade consciousness with a bird of prey.

Is it your role in life to make ridiculous comments?

The "Ultimate Challenge", I guess you could say, is to find a natural way to travel thought time

Or, possibly, get a meaningful post out of you.

If we can ever manage to reverse the directionality of all subatomic particles in our extension of the universe, then sure it is possible

What makes you think this is true?

I know nothing

Rest of the sentence not required.

therefore this idea is impractical at this time.

Like the rest of your "ideas". Yup.

 

[chimpkin]

The Buddhists question whether there's any substantial 'I' (or self or soul) that contains or performs the thinking.

...A point I came to is that I couldn't intellectually support the idea of gods, but I was lonely without them...

So I choose to believe in deities for utility, because it greases the mental gears. (Because I have interesting things happen regarding them, too)

My thought is this:if it works for you, you don't have to prove it to anybody else, and it does not have to be logical.
It may just be my impression, but the majority of the religious threads are like "I'm right!" " No you're not!" over and over...

At bottom, though, I believe there is no real intellectual proof for deity to be had. That trying to do so is building castles in air, mental masturbation.
This makes me view people who believe without doubt as a little weird and a little frightening. They don't understand how dangerous they can be, I don't think.
Of course I'm delusive too. Semi-consciously picking, choosing, and shuffling my delusions...but still...

It's Earth, after all. We're all mad around here, Alice.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Then you have a strange definition of "deity".

Strange language; I see myself as immoral. I prefer to speak blasphemy rather than imply our system of god is broken. You either know what the word god means in the mind of another person or you don't. Most people like yourself make simple enough assumptions based against the belief structure of another person. Not like it is hard to spot false beliefs about God in general.

This would be false.

how so?

To what extent and how effectively?

A small extent to what could possibly be done.

A very long time. Who do you think is working on developing a "supernatural computer"? And what exactly is one of those?

Very good question. Let's build something that transfers energy and information just like the universe does. Smaller than the width of a spiders leg, yet sends its light penetratingly deep into the surrounding parts of the universe. Make it as heterogeneous as the universe itself and give it a little space.

False.

Well we would not get too far in the current state of consciousness.

Um, no. Even when dreaming you don't fly.

You might not have that much control over your dreams, but some people do. When you dream do you recognize it as sleep or believe it is more or less reality?

Is it your role in life to make ridiculous comments?

Only when people ask me to deify the universe, before they add what the previous poster believes to be a universe. How many places that are too small to see in this sea of molecules hold a conscious form of existence. So much information being tossed around in the universe that we know absolutely nothing about.

There once was a conscious organism called Light. He moved at light speed and dominated the everlasting nothingness... Now he sees through you at every moment. Without light there would be nothing. The light is you and it is all around you.

What makes you think this is true?

Lol. I don't, because it would also imply we could make time move foreword, which is increasing light speed. I say some things to satisfy others beliefs, is that so hard to understand?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Strange language; I see myself as immoral.

If you see yourself as god (the source of morality, supposedly) then how can you be immoral?

I prefer to speak blasphemy rather than imply our system of god is broken.

See previous comment.

You either know what the word god means in the mind of another person or you don't.

And if some idiot can't be bothered to explain exactly what definition he's using the the rest of us are left to take the default definition.

Most people like yourself make simple enough assumptions based against the belief structure of another person.

Um, wrong. I merely pointed out that your definition does not accord with any of the usual ones, hence: strange.

Not like it is hard to spot false beliefs about God in general.

You think there are true beliefs about god?

how so?

Because, to a great extent, you are subject to it.

A small extent to what could possibly be done.

Well duh.

Very good question. Let's build something that transfers energy and information just like the universe does. Smaller than the width of a spiders leg, yet sends its light penetratingly deep into the surrounding parts of the universe. Make it as heterogeneous as the universe itself and give it a little space.

Did I ask for a helping of word salad? How does that relate to either of my questions?

Well we would not get too far in the current state of consciousness.

And your *cough* thoughts on what another "state of consciousness" would be? And how we'd achieve it? And how it would enable us to fly unaided?

You might not have that much control over your dreams, but some people do. When you dream do you recognize it as sleep or believe it is more or less reality?

It's not a question of "control over dreams" it's the fact that when you're dreaming it's in your mind. I.e. imagination. You don't fly, you just imagine you do.
When I dream I recognise it as dream, not sleep.

Only when people ask me to deify the universe

Such as? Who asked you to?

How many places that are too small to see in this sea of molecules hold a conscious form of existence

Not many.

There once was a conscious organism called Light

Evidence? Anything at all?

Now he sees through you at every moment. Without light there would be nothing. The light is you and it is all around you.

Nope.

it would also imply we could make time move foreword, which is increasing light speed.

Rubbish.

I say some things to satisfy others beliefs, is that so hard to understand?

And you want to satisfy others' beliefs because...? Whose beliefs do you think you're satisfying exactly?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

And if some idiot can't be bothered to explain exactly what definition he's using the the rest of us are left to take the default definition.

True God is the Universe. If we have killed him how is it that we can bring him to life? Are you ready to roll dice with the universe? See what your imagination creates?

You think there are true beliefs about god?

The only workable one I can think of are those where a person is considered god. Natural selection has chosen a person to represent the group.

Because, to a great extent, you are subject to it.

Not so. We control its pieces. It is also subject to our effects to a greater extent than we realize.

Did I ask for a helping of word salad? How does that relate to either of my questions?

It's the only foundation of God I can think of that works.

And your *cough* thoughts on what another "state of consciousness" would be? And how we'd achieve it? And how it would enable us to fly unaided?

What you feel and have no control over when your dead. Till you live again. We don't have much control over it now, but I see many ways for it to happen in the future.

It's not a question of "control over dreams" it's the fact that when you're dreaming it's in your mind. I.e. imagination. You don't fly, you just imagine you do.

I was just naming off some random examples of omnipotence or what omnipotence should feel like. Perfect control over your entire imagination is an infeasible power.

And you want to satisfy others' beliefs because...? Whose beliefs do you think you're satisfying exactly?

Satisfying yours is particularly tricky. You hardly hang onto anything.

 

[Dywyddyr]

True God is the Universe.

So you have two words for the same thing?
God = the universe.
Wow. What makes it "godlike"? What claimed attributes of god does the universe possess?

If we have killed him how is it that we can bring him to life?

Null question, since we haven't killed the universe.

Are you ready to roll dice with the universe? See what your imagination creates?

The only workable one I can think of are those where a person is considered god. Natural selection has chosen a person to represent the group.

How would "a person being considered god" be a "true belief about god"? Since that person would remain a person, a human, how can it be true that he's god?

Not so. We control its pieces.

Wrong again. We "control" an incredibly small portion of the number of "pieces".

It is also subject to our effects to a greater extent than we realize.

How? Please support this claim.

It's the only foundation of God I can think of that works.

Yeah, but we've already seen that your "thinking" isn't particularly good.

What you feel and have no control over when your dead.

When you're dead you're dead. Hence not "another state of consciousness".

Till you live again.

Supposition.

We don't have much control over it now, but I see many ways for it to happen in the future.

Yeah?

I was just naming off some random examples of omnipotence or what omnipotence should feel like.

Oh good. Instead of answering my questions or replying to my points you decide to go off at a tangent. Why? And are you going to answer my question?

Perfect control over your entire imagination is an infeasible power.

Which has what to do with what I asked?

Satisfying yours is particularly tricky. You hardly hang onto anything.

False. You'd be correct, however, if you'd said I hardly hang to anything that comes from you.
That's because you don't actually present anything of substance.
And it's nothing to do with my beliefs. You're assuming again. Incorrectly as usual.

 

[nicholas1M7]

Does anyone have any really workable theories of how god could exist? Something that can't be torn down in 5 posts by the frequenters of this forum?

I am not looking for pronouncements of belief. This is 'General Philosophy'.

I am looking for purely conjectural ideas that hold up to logical and scientific scrutiny.

God is but a silly belief of the fearful and ignorant. It is not meant to be taught in school.

 

[chimpkin]

You either know what the word god means in the mind of another person or you don't.

Do you know what the color yellow looks like in the mind of another person?

Then how on earth are we supposed to communicate effectively about a non-empirical concept?

I note also this is a bunch of westerners here...I wonder what this would look like if someone born Hindu jumped on board...

 

[universaldistress]

What I wrote was, "You ask for "theories of how god could exist". I'm not entirely sure what a 'theory of how a chair could exist' would look like. What is 'existence' in the first place? What kind of conditions have to be met in order for even mundane things to exist?"

How would you go about producing a theory of how chairs, stones, or any common physical object could exist? What would such a theory address? What would it include?

If we aren't even clear about what your question means or what it is seeking in the simplest physical object cases, then what sense does does the question retain when it's applied to supposedly transcendent objects like gods?

If you don't understand the question then I am sorry. Everyone else here seems to be tackling it ok. Address the question itself, don't link it to an analogous question the subject of which is something that has already been proven to exist.

Isn't this thread about producing a "theory of how [something] can exist"? It isn't about whether or not something exists, let alone about "proving" that something exists. (That problem with 'proof' again.) The question should be easiest to answer in the simplest and least contentious cases, before we try to extend it to more difficult problem cases.

You are just ducking the question because you don't have a hypothesis. The fact you don't have a hypothesis is fine.

Not asking for proof. Just asking for your take on how a god could exist. A chair COULD exist because a humanoid COULD be in need of something to sit on other than the floor. A hominid species COULD evolve to the point where chairs COULD be invented. Obviously I am having to move into a POV that lives in a world where chairs do not exist yet but be party to the idea a chair could possibly be made/discovered or invented as a concept.

I wrote: "If science describes physical reality and seeks to correlate physical events with other physical events as cause/effect etc., then what relevance could science possibly have to explaining the existence of something that isn't part of physical reality?"

You are assuming that god would not influence physical reality. The whole concept of god revolves around god influencing reality in some way. Don't assume. there are many different concepts of god. In fact any concept of god is welcome in this thread, though there will be examination of its credentials of course. Why not have a go at explaining your 'supernatural' god theory?

This exercise was meant as a bit of fun.

That doesn't imply that god can't act in the physical world or that miracles are impossible. It does suggest that even if we could somehow determine that something analogous to causation forms part of "a theory of how god can exist", it wouldn't be the physical causation that links together physical events and it wouldn't fall within science's scope.

Sounds like you are developing your own theory of a god. How your god is outside the testable and therefore isn't disprovable. Thats fine. Don't assume for everyone else though. And don't attack the question too much because in your attack you are in effect framing your own take/defining a possible god

I don't believe in god.

Me neither.

Why would I have a theory to account for the existence of something whose existence I don't believe in?

It isn't required that you have a theory. You decided to post here.

That doesn't make sense. I'm not even sure whether the idea of a theory of how anything can exist makes a whole lot of sense at this point.

Don't get lost in philosophy lol. Of course for the sake of answering this question anything goes. Your decision to wish to opt out is noted

If you don't fancy a direct stab at this one no one will think any the lesser of you.

It was just meant as a bit of fun; a cognitive exercise.

 

[gmilam]

1. Everything caused event or thing has a cause

Duh - by definition a "caused" event has a cause.

2. The universe has a cause.

Says who?

 

[universaldistress]

All I wished to do with this thread is remove the issue of proof/belief. I think the question I framed kind of did that, when answerers chose to have a go.

Atheists: If you still haven't had a go at a god theory, why not try it?
Theists: If you still haven't had a go at presenting a god theory here, as a theory, why not have a go?

Just though it may be interesting to see people swap their POVs for a time. You know? a move away from the normal cut and thrust.