What is a god?

[ZNFYRH]

5010,

Consider the metaphors behind the story about Medusa. Is it any wonder that we use the word petrified to describe someone who is so scared they can't move?

In an age with people who saw signs of the Gods in everything, it's possible that there may have been a woman so horrible to look at, or who frightened one person so much that they may have literally died of shock and fear. Or they were scared to the point where they couldn't move.

All it takes is for someone to say that they were "petrified" or "wouldn't move and their skin was as cold as stone" for the overly-mystic types to take it literally.

Quote by: Isherwood In all ways, the gods we invent mirror our desire to know that somewhere something understands everything and could tell us what it's all about.

I believe your statements prior to this quote demonstrate a certain degree of denial in those who believe God has all the answers. But I want to ask you a question and I want to make sure I'm wording it correctly:

As long as someone believes that the answers do exist and that the answers are out there, is that so wrong?

[Captain Chaos]

When I stare at Jessica Alba, at least one part of me turns to stone. Does that count?

[Jack]

I believe your statements prior to this quote demonstrate a certain degree of denial in those who believe God has all the answers.

Since no one has offered up any credible reason to believe that gods exist, I would have to say that believing that gods have any, let alone all, of the answers to life's questions is misguided. However, I do not deny that many people think gods have all the answers. I know many do.

As long as someone believes that the answers do exist and that the answers are out there, is that so wrong?

Wrong is a moral judgment I don't believe applies to this situation. Hoping that the answers are out there somewhere is also what motivates science to keep seeking them. But to expect the gods to provide answers is at best an exercise in futility.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Since no one has offered up any credible reason to believe that gods exist, I would have to say that believing that gods have any, let alone all, of the answers to life's questions is misguided. However, I do not deny that many people think gods have all the answers. I know many do.

I have offered up a credible reason, my infinite emergence argument.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I have offered up a credible reason, my infinite emergence argument.

I believe in god and do not consider the infinite emergence argument;' an adaquate argument for God. The nature of the physical existence can be explained by natural means regardless of whether ther is a creator or not.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: shunyadragon I believe in god and do not consider the infinite emergence argument;' an adaquate argument for God. The nature of the physical existence can be explained by natural means regardless of whether ther is a creator or not.

Yes it can.

So?

Tell me, given forever, how could a god-level being not emerge?

[Jack]

Tell me, given forever, how could a god-level being not emerge?

How can we say? There's no agreement on what constitutes a "god-level being", we don't know its characteristics or what conditions are necessary for its development. We have no reason to believe that god-level beings are anything but the product of our imaginations. We may as well ask, given forever, how could leprechauns not emerge.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Yes it can. So? Tell me, given forever, how could a god-level being not emerge?

Easy, The nature and laws and nature of an Infinite Matrix would be sufficient to explain the physical nature of our existence. The Matrix would be simply infinite in time, space, matter and energy, and from the over all view in an Infinite identity nothing is essentially necessary or emergent, ie one or more Dieties. The nature of the Matrix, ie the begining, life and death of universes, simply exist according the Laws and physical nature of the Matrix, in the same manner as the galaxies, stars and planets, as well as life exist in our universe.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Shunyadragon Easy, The nature and laws and nature of an Infinite Matrix would be sufficient to explain the physical nature of our existence.

Yes...

But that does not mean a god would not evolve/emerge, given enough time.

The Matrix would be simply infinite in time, space, matter and energy, and from the over all view in an Infinite identity nothing is essentially necessary or emergent, ie one or more Dieties.

If the probability of a god level being emerging during a period of time is > 0, then, yes, given forever, its emergence is unavoidable:

P = probability of a god emerging during a finite period of time, say 1 trillion years.

1-P = probability of this not occurring

(1-P)^N = probability of this not occurring at all, over N trials

1-((1-P)^N) = probability of a god emerging at least once over N trials.


As N, the number of trial periods approaches infinity, if P > 0, then (1-P)^N approaches zero. Thus, 1-((1-P)^N) approaches 1.

Thus, if it is at all possible for a god level being to exist, then, given forever, it will happen.


The only way to avoid this is to claim that the laws of physics make it impossible. I don't think this can be proven either way at this time, but I bet I can make better arguments in favor of it, than you can against it.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Yes... But that does not mean a god would not evolve/emerge, given enough time.

The choices are clearly that the 'Source' of existence is God, or God is the result of a belief system that evolved with the human nature, but I do not consider either alternative necessary.

For the foundation of knoweldge from which I develop a worldview, I tend to view the panarama of human existence from the view of 'what matter of fact' happened, and not in terms of the probability of things to happen. This 'matter of fact' nature does not include miraculous or supernatural claims as fact, but view them as 'matter of fact' claims in the framework surrounding the nature of the historical panarama, which include well documentd facts, and other reports or evidence concerning less well documented facts.

If the probability of a god level being emerging during a period of time is > 0, then, yes, given forever, its emergence is unavoidable: P = probability of a god emerging during a finite period of time, say 1 trillion years. 1-P = probability of this not occurring (1-P)^N = probability of this not occurring at all, over N trials 1-((1-P)^N) = probability of a god emerging at least once over N trials. As N, the number of trial periods approaches infinity, if P > 0, then (1-P)^N approaches zero. Thus, 1-((1-P)^N) approaches 1. Thus, if it is at all possible for a god level being to exist, then, given forever, it will happen. The only way to avoid this is to claim that the laws of physics make it impossible. I don't think this can be proven either way at this time, but I bet I can make better arguments in favor of it, than you can against it.

Probability is neither unavoidable or impossible of the occurance of an event, or the existence of something, is simply the probability of some thing occuring. The problem with this is, it could be equated to the probability of the emergence of 'Purple people eater', unicorns, elves, hobbits, or the belief in them. What is probable or inprobable will not demonstrate that something or the belief in that something must or must not exist.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: S. Dragon The problem with this is, it could be equated to the probability of the emergence of 'Purple people eater', unicorns, elves, hobbits, or the belief in them.

If such things are at all possible, then, yes, the same reasoning would apply.

Why is that a problem?

What is probable or inprobable will not demonstrate that something or the belief in that something must or must not exist.

If the probability of an event occurring is 100%, then, yes, that does indeed demonstrate that a thing must have occurred.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos If such things are at all possible, then, yes, the same reasoning would apply. Why is that a problem?

In reality the possibility you cite would not assure something exists.


If the probability of an event occurring is 100%, then, yes, that does indeed demonstrate that a thing must have occurred.[/quote]

In statistics probability is not useful for an event occuring 100% of the time.

. . . but some things are 100% and som aren't. In the history the belief in the afterlife, and/or Gods or God are universal in all Neolithic cultures, and has evolved and changed in the advancement of civilizations up to the present, but this belief is apparently not universal as far as individual belief. There are two explanations for this. (1) There indeed exists a God or Gods, and/or an afterlife. The problem is there is no consistnt model that would define one inherent true belief. (2) But mere belief is no assurance that something is true without other evidence. 'Other evidence' is usually the hot turf of debate. As with belief in God or Gods, and/or an afterlife has some survival value or related to a side effect of the development of the human intellect and social structure that has survival value. Humans also have developed logic and reasoning powers to make choices that have evolved with human the human advancement. As humanity evolved into the present human reason and logic has become more apparent in our beliefs, and agnostism and atheism. Is there a balance, or will the strict materialistic naturalism be the way of the future. My belief rests with a balance of the spiritual and material nature of existence.

[Captain Chaos]

The beliefs of neolithic man, or of modern man, are completely irrelevant to my argument.

Please show where my reasoning is flawed. With my argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion is unavoidable. To challenge my argument, one must thus attack the premises.

1) Infinite Time
2) It is possible for a god to emerge

Both of these premises are open to ample debate.

If you are saying the argument that follows these premises is false, please quote me the part of the argument that is incorrect, and explain why it is incorrect.