Workable systems of god

U

universaldistress

Extravagantly Introverted ...
Valued Senior Member
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.
 
Heh, there's an idea - everyone "swap" sides and present their best argument...*

Interesting question though. To be honest I've never gone through trying to come up with a proof/ theory of how he could exist.
Thinking cap on, methinks.

* It would be fascinating to see, for a specific example, Jan Ardena try this. I doubt he'd even attempt it, because, you know, god exists and that's final, so it's silly to try and show he doesn't.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Heh, there's an idea - everyone "swap" sides and present their best argument...*
Click to expand...

OK, as eternity may have been going a long time, a life form with a much higher mind could have evolved after trillions of years somewhere, yet it is not God, for it is dependent on its parts. Darn. Fail. We need an instant God, one before all, He naturally having intelligence to the nth degree, even.
 
We have a word we know very little about in the english language.

Omnipotence.

Never seen, never heard, never spoken with the truest potential. It is something too intelligent for our physical minds to bear. Raw untapped power. Is it a physical being? yes and no if you initial assumption jumps into personification. Yet as we stew in our logical fallacies trying to gather a reason for its existence we travel only to the deepest regions of our mind for what we perceive as answers for the existence of something our mind already knows to exist. Omnipotence. Searching for an objective light on the issue as our minds delve too deeply into subjective thought. The tunnel grows darker and darker as we begin to fixate not on what we have already but what was initially missing from what in time looks to be a historical chain. We are subjectively choosing to search for nothing when we delve into these thoughts. We miss the point. God is an independent perspective. Thus not subject to any though we as a race have ever had or will ever have.

Existence is omnipotence ipso facto.

You can't tie the beginning of the story to the end when you can't find either end. Especially when the beginning is completely independent of anything on the inside.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Heh, there's an idea - everyone "swap" sides and present their best argument...*
Click to expand...

Our more analytic minds may give the theists more ammo. Risky proposition. But not one to fear. No theory on a possible god can condone belief I suppose.

Interesting question though. To be honest I've never gone through trying to come up with a proof/ theory of how he could exist.
Thinking cap on, methinks.
Click to expand...
I see this as conjectural philosophy because it is not going to contain proof. Just lay-out how a god could exist without science being able to question it.

I suppose this is difficult for people to do because they usually have a fixed stance. It is about seeing how people can project into a different outlook.

* It would be fascinating to see, for a specific example, Jan Ardena try this. I doubt he'd even attempt it, because, you know, god exists and that's final, so it's silly to try and show he doesn't.
Click to expand...

In effect, theists and atheists would have to swap sides to do this.

It is a good test for the theists and atheists. See if they can entertain alternate ideas/propositions on the nature/possible nature of god.
 
NietzscheHimself said:
We have a word we know very little about in the english language.
Omnipotence.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You can find a full definition in a good dictionary.

Never seen, never heard, never spoken with the truest potential. It is something too intelligent for our physical minds to bear. Raw untapped power. Is it a physical being? yes and no if you initial assumption jumps into personification.
Click to expand...
I take you're assuming that there actually exists "something" that is omnipotent?

God is an independent perspective.
Click to expand...
In the way that neither can be shown to exist?

Existence is omnipotence ipso facto.
Click to expand...
Fallacy.
 
SciWriter said:
OK, as eternity may have been going a long time, a life form with a much higher mind could have evolved after trillions of years somewhere, yet it is not God, for it is dependent on its parts. Darn. Fail. We need an instant God, one before all, He naturally having intelligence to the nth degree, even.
Click to expand...

Any type of god is acceptable in this debate. God of ALL. Or god of one or multiple universes. The proposer decides.

This isn't about the validity of proof or god's power. Just a theory of 'a god'.
 
An intelligent alien terra-formed a planet and so He was God to them that arose billions of years thereafter.
 
My neurological sensations tell me, as I am one of the specially created, that God is so. Then it told me to work more on achieving humility.
 
NietzscheHimself said:
We have a word we know very little about in the english language.

Omnipotence.

Never seen, never heard, never spoken with the truest potential. It is something too intelligent for our physical minds to bear. Raw untapped power. Is it a physical being? yes and no if you initial assumption jumps into personification. Yet as we stew in our logical fallacies trying to gather a reason for its existence we travel only to the deepest regions of our mind for what we perceive as answers for the existence of something our mind already knows to exist. Omnipotence. Searching for an objective light on the issue as our minds delve too deeply into subjective thought. The tunnel grows darker and darker as we begin to fixate not on what we have already but what was initially missing from what in time looks to be a historical chain. We are subjectively choosing to search for nothing when we delve into these thoughts. We miss the point. God is an independent perspective. Thus not subject to any though we as a race have ever had or will ever have.

Existence is omnipotence ipso facto.

You can't tie the beginning of the story to the end when you can't find either end. Especially when the beginning is completely independent of anything on the inside.
Click to expand...

FAIL. You are pedalling a BELIEF. This is about possibities. Not stalwart entrenchments.

Does your god hold up to the rigours of scientific/logical investigation?
 
The very smart alien who evolved was able to step outside of the cyclical universe when one ended and was as 'God' to the next one. He didn't create it though, but ever fiddled with it, screwing up its DNA through unintended side effects.
 
Random happenings perfectly came together not only to form a toaster on Mars all at once, but to form a Being with infinite and perfect intelligence. I am flailing and failing.
 
Many concepts of God are possible, I think, but not many are valid theories in that they defy testing, or predictive ability.

For example, God as the creator of the universe who then leaves it to its own devices.
Utterly unprovable, but possible, and not one that can be disproven. Alas it is not technically a theory.
 
NietzscheHimself said:
Yes. God is the universe. The universe could be considered omnipotent. Which means I was initially right when I stated "God is dead."
Click to expand...
How can the universe be considered omnipotent when it obeys... sorry, IS defined by... a set of rules, rules that we are slowly understanding more and more about.
The universe, for example, can not - even if it was capable of choosing to - change the gravity of Earth at a moments notice.

Thus it surely can not be considered omnipotent?
 
universaldistress said:
Does anyone have any really workable theories of how god could exist?
Click to expand...

"Theories of how god could exist"? I don't think that any theists have ever tried to create such a theory. I expect that most of them would consider doing so to be impossible.

Something that can't be torn down in 5 posts by the frequenters of this forum?
Click to expand...

By calling them "dumbass" and telling them to "bog off"? Anybody can be summarily dismissed in five seconds with no effort at all. It doesn't matter what they say or how much sense it makes.

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

If your question has any philosophical interest, then it's probably as a meta-question, an inquiry into what kind of question it really is, how somebody might go about answering such a question, and what kind of reply would even count as an answer.

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

Science seeks to describe physical reality, and then (at least in physics' case) tries to correlate physical events with other physical events by interpreting everything as instantiation of some abstract invariant relationship expressed in mathematical form.

I fail to see what relevance science could have to answering the question of "how god could exist", assuming that the question even makes sense.
 
Yazata said:
"Theories of how god could exist"? I don't think that any theists have ever tried to create such a theory. I expect that most of them would consider doing so to be impossible.



By calling them "dumbass" and telling them to "bog off"? Anybody can be summarily dismissed in five seconds with no effort at all. It doesn't matter what they say or how much sense it makes.



If your question has any philosophical interest, then it's probably as a meta-question, an inquiry into what kind of question it really is, how somebody might go about answering such a question, and what kind of reply would even count as an answer.



Science seeks to describe physical reality, and then (at least in physics' case) tries to correlate physical events with other physical events by interpreting everything as instantiation of some abstract invariant relationship expressed in mathematical form.

I fail to see what relevance science could have to answering the question of "how god could exist", assuming that the question even makes sense.
Click to expand...

Why? Because it disagrees with your preconceptions/beliefs? LOL.
 
Science deals within the boundaries of known facts and its logic and its fringes. The logical projection of this is a good tool to explore possible ways god could exist.

Only a preconception can rule out science and logic's relevance.

Sarkus makes a valid point.

Sarkus said:
Many concepts of God are possible, I think, but not many are valid theories in that they defy testing, or predictive ability.

For example, God as the creator of the universe who then leaves it to its own devices.
Utterly unprovable, but possible, and not one that can be disproven. Alas it is not technically a theory.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top