A God?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes I agree that it would have to be very different if it isn't matter. We can't conceptualize it. So 'mind boggling' in that sense.

I thought that you might have meant that it would be necessarily complicated though. It may not be though I think, this 'substance' whatever it is, could be quite simple - just 'put together' really complicatedly..

The substance might be quite simple...just infinitely huge and put together really complicatedly to form the complexity of 'God'.

I was also thinking that....since I believe whatever was at the beginning would be simple I think it would be every so slightly more likely (although still almost infinitely improbable) that God was made up of lots of intricately working simple substance from the beginning...than not only GOD being complicated but also the substance itself being extremely compicated.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Like the new sig EvF

Why does the substance have to be complex? Why can't it be infinitely simplistic? That would seem equally logical to me.

Thanks for the defense LukeMC

Aye. The difference between matter and God is that although it gets tricky to say what matter is, we at least know it is there and can see it and interact with it. God on the other hand cannot be sensed or known, cannot be interacted with or deduced. It is rather odd to believe in something which you cannot be sure exists while also given the fact that if it did exist you wouldn't even know what it is :L

Scientifically speaking we can't interact with it or deduce what it is. Yet the Bible consists entirely of exactly that, and Christian experience is one of interaction with it. (Many other books may do but I just bring up this one for some reason )

What do we make of those deductions? How come these deductions ever made it onto paper (via mouth) if the task is impossible? We could say that either it's fairy tale. I don't agree with that one because it stands up to stronger scrutiny than that. We could say it's contradictory and dismiss those that tell us it isn't.. but I don't see any logical debunking that holds water when held up to scrutiny.

[LukeMC]

Scientifically speaking we can't interact with it or deduce what it is. Yet the Bible consists entirely of exactly that, and Christian experience is one of interaction with it. (Many other books may do but I just bring up this one for some reason )

What do we make of those deductions? How come these deductions ever made it onto paper (via mouth) if the task is impossible? We could say that either it's fairy tale. I don't agree with that one because it stands up to stronger scrutiny than that. We could say it's contradictory and dismiss those that tell us it isn't.. but I don't see any logical debunking that holds water when held up to scrutiny.

Now we have to establish whether or not the deductions are correct, whether or not the bible is correct, etc. It's a debate of its own and I don't have the energy for it. Not in this thread anyway

[Edwardo Piet]

Like the new sig EvF

Why does the substance have to be complex? Why can't it be infinitely simplistic? That would seem equally logical to me.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying too.

The substance itself could be very simple (or 'infinitely' even) - but God himself is made up of all this stuff to be something much much much more complex.

To have this very simple substance right from the beginning doesn't have to be complex. The substance itself could be extremely simple I think (after all, things are made up of more simple things generally) but the resulting "God" would have to be complex (because of the attributes that God would have to have, even if it's only the bare essentials of God).

If anything I say it's more probable ( if only ever so slightly). Because I think it's more probable that there is an absurdly improbable God at the beginning made up of lots of very simple stuff - than to not only have an incredibly complex GOD right at the beginning but for the substance that he is MADE of to be so complex too! (it's simpler to have more simple stuff at the beginning; if it's complex stuff at the beginning then I would think that couldn't be the beginning and 'we' must be mistaken - this 'complex stuff at the beginning' must be made of more simple stuff I would think).

EvF

[g-mark]

What is a thought?

What is a collection of thoughts?

Is a thought complex?

What would you have if you combined all the thoughts that are in the Universe at any one point in time?

[fr0d0]

Right EvF. I suppose I have to agree that what we attribute to God is pretty big.

Are you talking about the substance of God or the substance of our universe's creation?

I never think of God existing in our time frame. It just doesn't pan out for me. God has to be other dimensional to stand a chance of working logically. Who made God is not a question therefore. 'God just is' works fine.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am saying the substance of God could be very simple--but God himself would have to be very complex (because of the 'nature' and attributes of God).

Because I think since God is so improbable already - for the stuff that he is made of to be improbable as well - well that, if anything - is just even more improbable (I think..).

Because then if his SUBSTANCE is even complex, then you've gotta break THAT down too - just an extra level of complexity which would make God even more complex.

I think it's more probable that if God exists he would be made of a simple substance but 'put together', intertwined in a complex way (however it works), or whatever.

However in practical terms, I of course believe he would STILL be almost infinitely improbable because of his sheer complexity and total and utter lack of evidence. Still basically as improbable as the FSM.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Can I just say in the spirit of friendliness ..I'd like to stick the FSM line up yo ass!!!! LOL

- Just jokin'! ..Itz L8 an I gotta crash

[Edwardo Piet]

There's no more (or less ) evidence (or valid 'reasoning' or 'reasoning' or non-empirical evidnece) of God than there is of the FSM as far as I know

Evidence (NE included) for the FSM: Zero.
Evidence (NE included) for God: Zero.

(For people who reading who don't know, I use 'NE' to stand for 'non-empirical' because I am sick of having to type it all the time when explaining to fr0d0 here, that when I simply say "evidence"; I am not speaking of specifically empirical evidence unless specified otherwise!)

Oh and btw, in practical terms AT LEAST, fr0d0, the FSM is at least basically as improbable as God. Both ridiculous and complex deities that lack evidence entirely.

You don't seem to like it

What's the matter fr0d0? Scared of spaghetti? Lol

EvF

[fr0d0]

I'm happy to swap reasoning for NE Evidence if you are EvF

How can you say there's equally no reasoning for FSM and x-God? On one hand you have a clever joke to smite some ignorant school, on the other thousands of years of accumulated rock solid statments. Hardly similar,apart from the lack of physical/ scientific proof.

See, all I think you're really talking about is scientific proof, and not reasoning at all.

(damn - I need sleeep! lol)