The nature of God

[fr0d0]

That's a point of view Rabbit. A negative, destructive POV. Not the only view tho'.

---

I'm confused. Wasn't this about postulating exactly what kind of god COULD exist as per scientific discoveries up to this point?

So do you discount the idea that God could be omnipresent from science? How exactly?

[Purple Rabbit]

@ lukec
Oh that! That's easy, there's ample room for holographically projected gods originating from any brainlike structure capable of fantasy or fear, preferably both.

---

That's a point of view Rabbit. A negative, destructive POV. Not the only view tho'.

You realize that's your POV don't you?

Besides it's positive for it places inter human relations to the center of human concern, and because it makes clear this universe is no silly kindergarten for a thrilling life after death experience, this IS as thrilling as it gets. You dont have to follow silly rules from ancient goat herders but you may reason for yourself. You're not monitored for masturbation and other sinful bodily function but you can enjoy etc.

Life is somthing beautiful, not because some god says so, but because we can figure it out ourselves. That's beauty not destruction.

[Zen Badger]

refining of matter and the laws of nature to teh most effecient and simplest likeness?

Also to bump:
Does your "God" in the supposition have a consciousness or is it just a set of forces?
2- Is it within or outside the known universe?
3-Is it within the confines of known laws of nature?
4- Does/ How does it connected to percievable reality?

Excellent questions Tack.

For the sake of argument I will answer thusly.

1/ Yes, it is conscious
2/ It is within the known universe.
3/ It is constrained by the rules of the universe.
4/ Don't know, what do you think?

---

'We have concluded' LOL
...'Someone' has suggested God is a creator yet not emergent without any logical trace. How do you make such a leap?

'It's' ultimate goal is clearly nothing to do with human adoration. Another wild leap of logic.

...seems to me you're simply butchering a concept you have very little knowledge of rather than making any progress towards formulating a realistic theology.


Omnipresence is a universal 'god' attribute which VOID ignorantly rubbishes. Pippy made a perfectly rational point which was irrationally dismissed. God is indeed seen as 'everything'.

Quite simply Frodo, if God is not an emergent property of the universe then it is most likely

to be its creator.

And as to why human adoration is not its ultimate goal?

Because the Universe is about 14 billion years old.

Humanity has only been practicing religion for a few thousand years.

Seems to be a huge effort for very little return.

And for that matter, how do you "know" that human adoration is its ultimate goal.

[TruthWorthy]

refining of matter and the laws of nature to teh most effecient and simplest likeness?

Also to bump:
Does your "God" in the supposition have a consciousness or is it just a set of forces?
2- Is it within or outside the known universe?
3-Is it within the confines of known laws of nature?
4- Does/ How does it connected to percievable reality?

Excellent questions Tack.

For the sake of argument I will answer thusly.

1/ Yes, it is conscious
2/ It is within the known universe.
3/ It is constrained by the rules of the universe.
4/ Don't know, what do you think?

Legitimately answer's Zen, that god is of consciousness and resides within the universe and abides by its rules.
I would think any idea abides by rules such as not interfering with the laws of physics, etc.

[fr0d0]

You realize that's your POV don't you?

Besides it's positive for it places inter human relations to the center of human concern, and because it makes clear this universe is no silly kindergarten for a thrilling life after death experience, this IS as thrilling as it gets. You dont have to follow silly rules from ancient goat herders but you may reason for yourself. You're not monitored for masturbation and other sinful bodily function but you can enjoy etc.

Life is somthing beautiful, not because some god says so, but because we can figure it out ourselves. That's beauty not destruction.

Your POV is ridiculous in this instance.

Quite simply Frodo, if God is not an emergent property of the universe then it is most likely to be its creator.

If the universe emerged from God how could the universe be anything but God? How do you arrive at something producing something else foreign to it? That's illogical.

And as to why human adoration is not its ultimate goal?

Because the Universe is about 14 billion years old. Humanity has only been practicing religion for a few thousand years. Seems to be a huge effort for very little return. And for that matter, how do you "know" that human adoration is its ultimate goal.

You brought up that ridiculous idea and I wondered how you got there. You seem to be talking to an imaginary fundie in your head.

If you read what I put: "'It's' ultimate goal is clearly nothing to do with human adoration. Another wild leap of logic." ...you'd see I was dismissing the notion that human adoration was anything to do with God's "ultimate goal".

[Zen Badger]

Quite simply Frodo, if God is not an emergent property of the universe then it is most likely to be its creator.

If the universe emerged from God how could the universe be anything but God? How do you arrive at something producing something else foreign to it? That's illogical.

And as to why human adoration is not its ultimate goal?

Because the Universe is about 14 billion years old. Humanity has only been practicing religion for a few thousand years. Seems to be a huge effort for very little return. And for that matter, how do you "know" that human adoration is its ultimate goal.

You brought up that ridiculous idea and I wondered how you got there. You seem to be talking to an imaginary fundie in your head.

If you read what I put: "'It's' ultimate goal is clearly nothing to do with human adoration. Another wild leap of logic." ...you'd see I was dismissing the notion that human adoration was anything to do with God's "ultimate goal".

You appear to misunderstand what I mean by God being an emergent property of the universe.

I mean that God is a result of the universe, not the other way around.

And as to human adoration being its ultimate goal?

Try reading Revelations.

However, please feel free to tell us what you think its ultimate goals might be.

[fr0d0]

You appear to misunderstand what I mean by God being an emergent property of the universe. I mean that God is a result of the universe, not the other way around.

Yes but you're making it either/ or: You said: "we have concluded that God is not an emergent property. But a Creator"

What I'm saying is that if you suppose God to be the creator, then it follows that he has to be everything that emerges as well.

And as to human adoration being its ultimate goal? Try reading Revelations. However, please feel free to tell us what you think its ultimate goals might be.

1. I thought we weren't talking about Christianity?
2. You choose to be literalist ...I don't thanks.

[KichigaiNeko]

I'm confused. Wasn't this about postulating exactly what kind of god COULD exist as per scientific discoveries up to this point?

BINGO!
(apologies for the capitalilsation)

As I understand it ....

with all the "discoveries" made by science to date it would appear that the necessity for this abrahmic god concept to fullfil the needs of a superstitious species is becoming more and more superfluous. That being the case I think ZB is trying to promote speculation on just what will (if anything) replace it.

As fr0d0 has quite articluately pointed out, that the human species thrives on this abrahamic fairy tale so they can define themselves, a superstition of some description is needed. Otherwise why do we have funementalists running all over the planet issuing threats and violence to disinterested persons??

Hmmmm To create a religion based on concrete scientific knowledge from scratch?? ...Still thinking

[TruthWorthy]

Kic, It's called empiracism.

[KichigaiNeko]

Kic, It's called empiracism.

What is??