Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 8:05 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 8:14 am by robvalue.)
Ok, you believe those things. That's fine 
But why should we also believe them? Or are you not suggesting that we should?
(Edited, I was a bit flippant sorry!)
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 3:28 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 3:30 pm by Heywood.)
(February 18, 2015 at 8:05 am)robvalue Wrote: Ok, you believe those things. That's fine
But why should we also believe them? Or are you not suggesting that we should?
(Edited, I was a bit flippant sorry!)
I am not asking you to believe. I am answering the question, "what made God?". My answer is that God is a "consequence" of this kind of reality.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 7:23 pm
(February 18, 2015 at 3:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am not asking you to believe. I am answering the question, "what made God?". My answer is that God is a "consequence" of this kind of reality. If this reality created god, then there is no need for a god if the reality already exists. Quote:... God is a "consequence" of this kind of reality.
And if it were a different reality, there would be no god or a different god?
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 3634
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 7:36 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 7:37 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 18, 2015 at 3:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am not asking you to believe. I am answering the question, "what made God?". My answer is that God is a "consequence" of this kind of reality.
So, it would seem that you believe in the primacy of existence, as opposed to the primacy of consciousness. That's a bit unusual for a Christian, since most Christians believe that their god is the creator of existence.
As IATIA stated, if existence comes before a god, then god seems a bit superfluous.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 19, 2015 at 3:58 am
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2015 at 3:59 am by robvalue.)
I'm reminded of a quote from Douglas Adams, although I forget which book and the exact quote...
"Since most gods came into existence shortly after the creation of the universe, and not as they usually claim, the previous month, they have a great deal of explaining to do themselves, and are as such unavailable for comment."
Anyone know the exact quote? As usual Adams takes religion to the top rope for a 360 leaping pile driver.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 19, 2015 at 7:06 am
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2015 at 7:07 am by Heywood.)
(February 18, 2015 at 7:36 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So, it would seem that you believe in the primacy of existence, as opposed to the primacy of consciousness. That's a bit unusual for a Christian, since most Christians believe that their god is the creator of existence.
As IATIA stated, if existence comes before a god, then god seems a bit superfluous.
As long as there has been 3 dimensional space there has been an inverse square law. I don't grant 3 dimensional space primacy over the inverse square law or the inverse square law primacy over 3 dimensional space.
I don't hold the position that reality came first and then God. Both have always existed. God is simply a necessary condition of an eternal reality that has also always been emergent complex, just as the inverse square law is a necessary condition of any space which has 3 dimensions.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 19, 2015 at 7:18 pm
(February 19, 2015 at 7:06 am)Heywood Wrote: I don't hold the position that reality came first and then God. Both have always existed. God is simply a necessary condition of an eternal reality that has also always been emergent complex, just as the inverse square law is a necessary condition of any space which has 3 dimensions. No. If the framework in which God is supposed to have created the universe is eternal, then there's no need for God, since something which is not God has the capability of existing uncreated.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 19, 2015 at 7:39 pm
(February 19, 2015 at 7:18 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (February 19, 2015 at 7:06 am)Heywood Wrote: I don't hold the position that reality came first and then God. Both have always existed. God is simply a necessary condition of an eternal reality that has also always been emergent complex, just as the inverse square law is a necessary condition of any space which has 3 dimensions. No. If the framework in which God is supposed to have created the universe is eternal, then there's no need for God, since something which is not God has the capability of existing uncreated. He is just trying to cheat his way out of infinite regression.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 19, 2015 at 7:43 pm
(February 19, 2015 at 7:39 pm)IATIA Wrote: (February 19, 2015 at 7:18 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No. If the framework in which God is supposed to have created the universe is eternal, then there's no need for God, since something which is not God has the capability of existing uncreated. He is just trying to cheat his way out of infinite regression.
In philosophical terms, I would define God exactly that way: "The quantity, entity or principle which resolves all paradox." Therefore, EVEN IF statements about such a God are nonsenical, it doesn't matter, because such a God is the remedy to the nonsense.
Frankly, there's some case to be made, since the universe is a big fuckfest of paradox and mystery. But I don't see why the case should be made for a specifically CONSCIOUS quantity.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 19, 2015 at 8:18 pm
Exactly!
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
|
