• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

punshhh said:
....
I don't see a requirement for a creator to be more complex than its creation .....
Click to expand...
That is not the point. In order to create one has to be complex which we see from all evidence does not come FIRST, de novo, out of nothing.
 
punshhh said:
Thankyou for the link, a usefull reference point. I will however go beyond standard logical arguments, as again these are machinations of the human mind, a mind which came up with infinity:boggled:
Click to expand...
That is puzzling because you are human and anything you come up with will be considered a human machination. Another danger is that when you abandon logic you enter an area where you can't distinguish reality from fantasy. Once there how do you plan to show anything as true?


I don't see a requirement for a creator to be more complex than its creation as in the case of humanity and the keyboard. I would envisage a spectrum of varying degrees of complexity both in the creator and the creation.
Click to expand...
If you posit a god that is very simple and not complicated at all, then basically you make the argument where God = universe. If that is the case then you are basically relabeling what a god is. Might as well call it what it is. The universe and nobody would disagree with you.

If that is not what you mean then this being has to have certain properties the universe has not exhibited. What are those properties? If you say listening to prayer or anything supernatural then you right there create a more complicated being. This brings you back to irreducible complexity.

So the question is.....what can your god do? Once you tell us that then we can make the decision if he is more complicated than the universe(irreducible complexity), equal to the universe (which makes your god = universe and runs into why you are relabeling problem) or less complicated than the universe (useless as a god concept but explains the beginning and equivalent to calling the big bang = god)



Yes the existence or not of gods is insignificant in our everyday lives. However I would not be happy in defining my reality in terms of relevance, as I am a truth seeker by nature.

Yes, For this line of reasoning I am regarding creating as manipulating. We may come onto other uses later.
Click to expand...

As a truth seeker you need a way to establish what is true. A way to separate truth from fiction. The only way that humanity achieves that is with the scientific method. What happens when you apply the scientific method to your thoughts on this subject?
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Sorry, I have been busy elsewhere the last few days and your posts take longer to get to grips with.

By gap I am referring to some aspect of existence which we do not understand or are ignorant of. I accept that we are essentially monkeys and may well not have the intellectual capacity to address questions regarding creators of universes or existence. Rather like the ant running across your mobile phone. It is not aware of what exactly it is(or the implications of that) which passes under its feet.
Click to expand...

That's all nice and general, but in the process you're simply deciding that you're not going to add in any rigor or any available evidence.

You've stopped at "Seems to me like..." and not gone any farther.

By that logic, you're all over geocentrism.

So if you want to actually consider and debate this topic, you're going to have to let go of that method and start taking the issue a bit more seriously -- paying attention to the points made in this thread would be a good start.
 
punshhh said:
I see no necessity to involve human mythology in this discussion, as I have clearly stated that I am considering gods which may exist independently to humans.

I define god as an intelligent creator.
Click to expand...

Awesome! That means I am the God of Small Interesting Things made of paper, and also a few Questionable Meals?
 
DangerMouth said:
Awesome! That means I am the God of Small Interesting Things made of paper, and also a few Questionable Meals?
Click to expand...

<places Pigasus origami on desk as altar. offers taste of leftover roasted sweet potato. No? Eats said sweet potato.>
 
I particularly love it when people bag science, while sitting in their airconditioned house, drinking ice cold coca-cola, while typing away on their computer after having taken their medication.

rUl4r.
 
dlorde said:
We've been through this. There isn't 'true' infinity or 'false' infinity, it's just infinity; and something can't be infinitely similar/close/approximate to infinity. Either it's infinite or it isn't. If it isn't, infinity is infinitely greater. You are still demonstrating a fundamental failure to grasp the concept.

It may be that you're incapable of grasping it, but I suspect you're simply not prepared to put in the necessary effort to read up on it or think it through. This isn't mysticism - you can't just make up what you like with minimum thought and effort and expect to be taken seriously.


Parallel mirror optical regression isn't 'analogous' to infinity - it is, in principle, an infinite regression. In practice it isn't infinite and doesn't 'approach' infinity.

Fail.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you will now demonstrate an application of infinity to something that exists?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why, does the following not explain my point? "But the point is moot because it in no way supports your argument anyway. AI if/when developed by humans will not have developed de novo."

Does the bolding help or do you need a definition for de novo?
Click to expand...
I did address this point, I said, I regard humanity and everything it creates as natural processes. This view acknowledges the natural process of intelligent creators(manipulators) creating intelligent creators, who intern go on to create, including further intelligent creators in turn ad infinitum*.

Your claim is that the intelligent creator could have come first. All the evidence we have of the Universe supports the conclusion things evolve from less complex to more complex. You are claiming we should hypothesize one most complex part of a life form, intelligence, could have come first. You have not one single shred of anything other than your personal fiction to support this position. JK Rowling has a great imagination. That is not evidence that Potter's Hogwarts is possibly real.
Click to expand...
No I am specifically not suggesting a first cause, rather an eternity.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
AKA, fiction.
Click to expand...
Speculation.

Yes, fiction can, when it is based on something real. I can speculate about future space travel because there is current travel. I can speculate about future medicine because we have medicine.

You are claiming it is valid to speculate about known fiction for which there is no basis in reality to tie it to. That is no different that speculating fairies might exist because someone drew pictures of them.
Click to expand...
I am tying my speculation to something real, the intelligent creators I have observed in nature.
 
Daald said:
That is puzzling because you are human and anything you come up with will be considered a human machination. Another danger is that when you abandon logic you enter an area where you can't distinguish reality from fantasy. Once there how do you plan to show anything as true?
Click to expand...
Well I am aware of this limitation, however there are various ways in which one can learn to see the wood for the trees.

I will point out that I am also aware that I am in contact with and in interaction with nature through being alive in a physical body. I am interacting with the material which the origin/existence of I am considering here.

One way of learning to see the wood for the trees is to consider the possibility that our entire experience of reality is a perfect(approximate) expression of this nature and that through a contemplation of this reality one is by implication contemplating the nature of its existence.



If you posit a god that is very simple and not complicated at all, then basically you make the argument where God = universe. If that is the case then you are basically relabeling what a god is. Might as well call it what it is. The universe and nobody would disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Perhaps pure is a more appropriate word than simple here.

If that is not what you mean then this being has to have certain properties the universe has not exhibited. What are those properties? If you say listening to prayer or anything supernatural then you right there create a more complicated being. This brings you back to irreducible complexity.
Click to expand...
Such properties may not be exhibited to humanity. I am not considering anything supernatural. Prayer perhaps if it is taken to be contemplation.

So the question is.....what can your god do? Once you tell us that then we can make the decision if he is more complicated than the universe(irreducible complexity), equal to the universe (which makes your god = universe and runs into why you are relabeling problem) or less complicated than the universe (useless as a god concept but explains the beginning and equivalent to calling the big bang = god)
Click to expand...
This god is unknown(being outside the scope of the human mind), therefore what it can do is unknown, including what interaction with our known universe it has.


As a truth seeker you need a way to establish what is true. A way to separate truth from fiction. The only way that humanity achieves that is with the scientific method. What happens when you apply the scientific method to your thoughts on this subject?
Click to expand...
The application of a scientific approach is rather like a cross between a library and a garden of the mind. All concepts encountered which address these subjects are collected and filed. They are found a plot in the fertile mind in which to develop. The gardener/thinker tends to the concepts on a regular basis and oversees the contemplation and synthesis of the concepts and sculpts refined or transcendent concepts.

The continual tending or grooming of the garden is vital, rather like the tending of a Japanese garden of contemplation.
 
Piggy said:
That's all nice and general, but in the process you're simply deciding that you're not going to add in any rigor or any available evidence.

You've stopped at "Seems to me like..." and not gone any farther.

By that logic, you're all over geocentrism.

So if you want to actually consider and debate this topic, you're going to have to let go of that method and start taking the issue a bit more seriously -- paying attention to the points made in this thread would be a good start.
Click to expand...

I am pressed for time, perhaps if we tackle one point at a time.

I have one for you to answer, is there a gap or isn't there?
 
devnull said:
So what is your proposed alternative method for ascertaining truth?

Lets say, I believe that the average elephant is heavier than the average fridge, but you think the opposite. How, in your mind, would we go about ascertaining the truth of the matter?
Click to expand...

Look in the holy babble. Pray for enlightenment. Rinse and repeat. ;)
 
punshhh said:
Where the fabric or material of existence came from is a different question.
Click to expand...

You wish. You're just spouting gibberish in classic mystic style and are trying to avoid the unpleasant follow-up questions. Well, think again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom