Definition of God

[JoeyKnothead]

I won't name the source, cause it was offered in the spirit of explanation moreso than outright fact, but let's fuss on it all the same:

...
For a general definition of God, "the underlying source of all else which exists"...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm God is the underlying source of all else which exists.

Remember, the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site .

[JoeyKnothead]

Then in the interest of eliminating the impossible, let's take it a step further. If, as you stated earlier, Nothing is able to behave like Something, is it able to do so without Anything to give it the ability? And if it is, in which direction does that move things: toward the material, or toward the mystical?

Things act according to their properties, and according to the properties of other stuff thereabouts.

That we might not understand all of it is scant a reason to just throw our hands up and declare, "How bout ol' God there!"

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44"We seem to be going around in circles because you seem to confuse what seems counter -intuitive to you with what is impossible. Because you cannot comprehend that matter -energy is actually made of nothing acting like something (as though that isn't what 'god' actually in supposed to be) it is -to you - 'impossible'."


It's been said that the invisible looks a lot like the nonexistent.

Have you ever noticed how much the "counter-intuitive" looks like the mystical?

The invisible can indeed look like the nonexistent. But that only means that one doesn't know whether it exists or not. But it illogical to claim that it exists before the existence has been demonstrated. Otherwise one is investing Faith in a pet theory (hypothesis). The mystical, religions and pseudo - science being examples of this irrationality.

I was going to say that I can't say I have; rather it looks like explanation for (often scientific) questions that don't seem reasonable. The Heliocentric system, the round earth, relativity, black holes and quantum/indeterminacy are example of the counter - intuitive that turned out to be validated by science.

But yes, I can see the point. I'm thinking of instinct. How on earth do animals (including us) do things without being taught to? It looked frankly mystical and those who thought that 'God' was too easy and unsubstantiated opted for 'we don't know - yet'. Then DNA answered the question of innate behaviour. It's the same with things like cosmic origins, origins of life and Consciousness. We don't know - yet, and the temptation is to put the Mystical (god) in as an easy answer. But it's not a valid one.

Then in the interest of eliminating the impossible, let's take it a step further. If, as you stated earlier, Nothing is able to behave like Something, is it able to do so without Anything to give it the ability? And if it is, in which direction does that move things: toward the material, or toward the mystical?

I don't know. But (to repeat myself a bit) this is a sorta -hypothesis that gets around substance without creation which gets around the causality/infinite regression -problem. Postulating a cosmic mind with creative powers does not. It is little more than a suggestion with just a hint (from experiments) that nothingness has inherent energy without anyone putting it there.

I would certainly see that as a physics (materialist) matter rather than mystical.

But I also repeat that this is not a problem for atheists, as a postulated god still doesn't validate any particular religion. That is something that has to be validated on its' own terms, not by appealing to a creator as the only explanation for Cosmic origins.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44"We seem to be going around in circles because you seem to confuse what seems counter -intuitive to you with what is impossible. Because you cannot comprehend that matter -energy is actually made of nothing acting like something (as though that isn't what 'god' actually in supposed to be) it is -to you - 'impossible'."


It's been said that the invisible looks a lot like the nonexistent.

Have you ever noticed how much the "counter-intuitive" looks like the mystical?

The invisible can indeed look like the nonexistent. But that only means that one doesn't know whether it exists or not. But it illogical to claim that it exists before the existence has been demonstrated. Otherwise one is investing Faith in a pet theory (hypothesis). The mystical, religions and pseudo - science being examples of this irrationality.

I was going to say that I can't say I have; rather it looks like explanation for (often scientific) questions that don't seem reasonable. The Heliocentric system, the round earth, relativity, black holes and quantum/indeterminacy are example of the counter - intuitive that turned out to be validated by science.

But yes, I can see the point. I'm thinking of instinct. How on earth do animals (including us) do things without being taught to? It looked frankly mystical and those who thought that 'God' was too easy and unsubstantiated opted for 'we don't know - yet'. Then DNA answered the question of innate behaviour. It's the same with things like cosmic origins, origins of life and Consciousness. We don't know - yet, and the temptation is to put the Mystical (god) in as an easy answer. But it's not a valid one.

Then in the interest of eliminating the impossible, let's take it a step further. If, as you stated earlier, Nothing is able to behave like Something, is it able to do so without Anything to give it the ability? And if it is, in which direction does that move things: toward the material, or toward the mystical?

I don't know. But (to repeat myself a bit) this is a sorta -hypothesis that gets around substance without creation which gets around the causality/infinite regression -problem. Postulating a cosmic mind with creative powers does not. It is little more than a suggestion with just a hint (from experiments) that nothingness has inherent energy without anyone putting it there.

I would certainly see that as a physics (materialist) matter rather than mystical.

But I also repeat that this is not a problem for atheists, as a postulated god still doesn't validate any particular religion. That is something that has to be validated on its' own terms, not by appealing to a creator as the only explanation for Cosmic origins.

inherent (adjective): existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
(Oxford Languages)

If energy is Something, then it does not exist as a characteristic attribute of Nothing. If energy exists, therefore, that doesn't mean it exists "in nothing"; it means that there isn't nothing.

And to repeat myself a bit, if energy is part of the universe it's still subject to causality; presumably something has to make it exist, even if nothing ever made it begin to exist.

And do we know enough about the nature of the Cosmos and the nature of consciousness to know what a "cosmic mind" would require?

[brunumb]

And to repeat myself a bit, if energy is part of the universe it's still subject to causality; presumably something has to make it exist, even if nothing ever made it begin to exist.

Why? If a god entity doesn't have to be made to exist, why can't the same apply to energy? And, while most discussion revolve around the probability of a god existing, has anyone manage to establish that such a thing is even possible?

[JoeyKnothead]

And to repeat myself a bit, if energy is part of the universe it's still subject to causality; presumably something has to make it exist, even if nothing ever made it begin to exist.

Why? If a god entity doesn't have to be made to exist, why can't the same apply to energy? And, while most discussion revolve around the probability of a god existing, has anyone manage to establish that such a thing is even possible?

Very much.

Anything proposed to how come the universe must immediately be questioned on how come it.

[Athetotheist]

And to repeat myself a bit, if energy is part of the universe it's still subject to causality; presumably something has to make it exist, even if nothing ever made it begin to exist.

Why? If a god entity doesn't have to be made to exist, why can't the same apply to energy? And, while most discussion revolve around the probability of a god existing, has anyone manage to establish that such a thing is even possible?

Again, if we see fit to apply causality to a "god entity", we really have no excuse for not applying it to the universe.

What is energy? It's the capacity to do work, which comes down to energy being motion or at least the potential for motion. For there to be motion, there has to be something which can be moved. Nothing moveable, no energy. Thus again, energy is dependent on the existence of "stuff". "Stuff" has to consist of something, and then what is that something? And we're back at causality.

We experience three spacial dimensions but, as Michio Kaku has put it, there isn't enough room in the dimensions we experience for all the laws of physics. He was commenting on the quantum realm and the mathematics of possible higher dimensions, but what if that principle can be extended? What if there isn't enough room in the material universe for the entirety of a "god entity", so that we would perceive such an entity's presence like Flatlanders would perceive a ball going through their 2-D universe?

The notion of a "god entity" may seem a stretch. But even Einstein, who didn't believe in a personal god, expressed a "deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe".

[Tcg]

The notion of a "god entity" may seem a stretch. But even Einstein, who didn't believe in a personal god, expressed a "deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe".

So you base your argument on the statement of one single individual?


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

And to repeat myself a bit, if energy is part of the universe it's still subject to causality; presumably something has to make it exist, even if nothing ever made it begin to exist.

Why? If a god entity doesn't have to be made to exist, why can't the same apply to energy? And, while most discussion revolve around the probability of a god existing, has anyone manage to establish that such a thing is even possible?

Again, if we see fit to apply causality to a "god entity", we really have no excuse for not applying it to the universe.

What is energy? It's the capacity to do work, which comes down to energy being motion or at least the potential for motion. For there to be motion, there has to be something which can be moved. Nothing moveable, no energy. Thus again, energy is dependent on the existence of "stuff". "Stuff" has to consist of something, and then what is that something? And we're back at causality.

We experience three spacial dimensions but, as Michio Kaku has put it, there isn't enough room in the dimensions we experience for all the laws of physics. He was commenting on the quantum realm and the mathematics of possible higher dimensions, but what if that principle can be extended? What if there isn't enough room in the material universe for the entirety of a "god entity", so that we would perceive such an entity's presence like Flatlanders would perceive a ball going through their 2-D universe?

The notion of a "god entity" may seem a stretch. But even Einstein, who didn't believe in a personal god, expressed a "deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe".

I think you've got a good angle here, but as it might reflect on the existence of a god, well there we go.

That which we don't, or can't possibly understand ought never be comforted by the proposition there's a god there, and how bout that.

[brunumb]

Again, if we see fit to apply causality to a "god entity", we really have no excuse for not applying it to the universe.

That's the point. I don't see fit to apply causality to a "god entity", so logically I don't see fit to apply it to the universe either. Demonstrate that either one needs or doesn't need a cause as being fact.

What is energy? It's the capacity to do work, which comes down to energy being motion or at least the potential for motion. For there to be motion, there has to be something which can be moved. Nothing moveable, no energy. Thus again, energy is dependent on the existence of "stuff". "Stuff" has to consist of something, and then what is that something? And we're back at causality.

Energy is not dependent on the existence of stuff. Energy itself can be considered 'stuff'. How do we know that we have discovered all the forms of energy that might exist and any other properties it might therefore have?

We experience three spacial dimensions but, as Michio Kaku has put it, there isn't enough room in the dimensions we experience for all the laws of physics. He was commenting on the quantum realm and the mathematics of possible higher dimensions, but what if that principle can be extended? What if there isn't enough room in the material universe for the entirety of a "god entity", so that we would perceive such an entity's presence like Flatlanders would perceive a ball going through their 2-D universe?

"What if" is not much of a hook to hang your coat on.

The notion of a "god entity" may seem a stretch. But even Einstein, who didn't believe in a personal god, expressed a "deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe".

A deeply emotional conviction is no substitute for evidence regardless of ones intelligence.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44"We seem to be going around in circles because you seem to confuse what seems counter -intuitive to you with what is impossible. Because you cannot comprehend that matter -energy is actually made of nothing acting like something (as though that isn't what 'god' actually in supposed to be) it is -to you - 'impossible'."

It's been said that the invisible looks a lot like the nonexistent.

Have you ever noticed how much the "counter-intuitive" looks like the mystical?

The invisible can indeed look like the nonexistent. But that only means that one doesn't know whether it exists or not. But it illogical to claim that it exists before the existence has been demonstrated. Otherwise one is investing Faith in a pet theory (hypothesis). The mystical, religions and pseudo - science being examples of this irrationality.

I was going to say that I can't say I have; rather it looks like explanation for (often scientific) questions that don't seem reasonable. The Heliocentric system, the round earth, relativity, black holes and quantum/indeterminacy are example of the counter - intuitive that turned out to be validated by science.

But yes, I can see the point. I'm thinking of instinct. How on earth do animals (including us) do things without being taught to? It looked frankly mystical and those who thought that 'God' was too easy and unsubstantiated opted for 'we don't know - yet'. Then DNA answered the question of innate behaviour. It's the same with things like cosmic origins, origins of life and Consciousness. We don't know - yet, and the temptation is to put the Mystical (god) in as an easy answer. But it's not a valid one.

Then in the interest of eliminating the impossible, let's take it a step further. If, as you stated earlier, Nothing is able to behave like Something, is it able to do so without Anything to give it the ability? And if it is, in which direction does that move things: toward the material, or toward the mystical?

I don't know. But (to repeat myself a bit) this is a sorta -hypothesis that gets around substance without creation which gets around the causality/infinite regression -problem. Postulating a cosmic mind with creative powers does not. It is little more than a suggestion with just a hint (from experiments) that nothingness has inherent energy without anyone putting it there.

I would certainly see that as a physics (materialist) matter rather than mystical.

But I also repeat that this is not a problem for atheists, as a postulated god still doesn't validate any particular religion. That is something that has to be validated on its' own terms, not by appealing to a creator as the only explanation for Cosmic origins.

inherent (adjective): existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
(Oxford Languages)

If energy is Something, then it does not exist as a characteristic attribute of Nothing. If energy exists, therefore, that doesn't mean it exists "in nothing"; it means that there isn't nothing.

And to repeat myself a bit, if energy is part of the universe it's still subject to causality; presumably something has to make it exist, even if nothing ever made it begin to exist.

And do we know enough about the nature of the Cosmos and the nature of consciousness to know what a "cosmic mind" would require?

We don't know enough about nothing and something at the most basic level to be able to say that one can't act like the other. To do otherwise is to invest words that we use to describe what we are familiar with in order to impose conditions on what we don't know much about and I don't think we should do that, but rather not make definite pronouncements about unknowns. I certainly don't think that juggling with words is going to make a god look more probable than an uncreated 'Something', which is always going to be less complex than a god.

And, at the risk of dong the same with the concept of a cosmic mind, it would seem that you'd need Something organising together in order to be able to plan and to create. So you have the same problem of causality there and - as I suggested - a bigger problem than nothing that an act like Something.

I'll mention here an idea I have about the BB. That the whole universe could be packed into an 'event' the size of a bowling -ball.

There's 'counter -intuitive' if you like. But suppose that it's all actually without substance but energy. Then you could compress an entire universe into nearly nothing - except the energy builds up until it can't hold its' water any more and flies apart (BB'explosion'). As I say, I' no physicist. I just claim to know the Gospels pretty well and I just picked up a few apologetics wiggles about the Big Three apologetics (origins of Life, the Universe and Consciousness), but it's a possible explanation about how you could pack the universe into a suitcase, don't you think?

And to repeat myself a bit, if energy is part of the universe it's still subject to causality; presumably something has to make it exist, even if nothing ever made it begin to exist.

Why? If a god entity doesn't have to be made to exist, why can't the same apply to energy? And, while most discussion revolve around the probability of a god existing, has anyone manage to establish that such a thing is even possible?

Again, if we see fit to apply causality to a "god entity", we really have no excuse for not applying it to the universe.

What is energy? It's the capacity to do work, which comes down to energy being motion or at least the potential for motion. For there to be motion, there has to be something which can be moved. Nothing moveable, no energy. Thus again, energy is dependent on the existence of "stuff". "Stuff" has to consist of something, and then what is that something? And we're back at causality.

We experience three spacial dimensions but, as Michio Kaku has put it, there isn't enough room in the dimensions we experience for all the laws of physics. He was commenting on the quantum realm and the mathematics of possible higher dimensions, but what if that principle can be extended? What if there isn't enough room in the material universe for the entirety of a "god entity", so that we would perceive such an entity's presence like Flatlanders would perceive a ball going through their 2-D universe?

The notion of a "god entity" may seem a stretch. But even Einstein, who didn't believe in a personal god, expressed a "deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe".

As I say, at best you have two equal hypotheses, an uncreated 'god' and an uncreated 'Something' - and no reason to prefer one over the other. If both were equal, to prefer a Mind over matter would reflect preference and that's far short of those who invest faith in the Cosmic Mind.

But even apart from the higher causality -bar you need to postulate a creating entity, you have questions to answer. why would this creative Mind have to go through chemical and then biological evolution? Why not just Do It? And where is this mind? Despite the best efforts of ID, no god has been demonstrated. There is nothing where you need a god, but evolution (in the broadest sense) is an adequate explanation.

I don't think it's going to do you any good appealing to unknowns. Theist apologists have long trotted out Boggle like Quantum, indeterminacy and the Holographic Universe in order to make us doubt everything we thought we knew and try to slip a god in there as some kind of secure mental placeholder. Sorry - unknowns are unknowns - they are not gaps for 'God'.

Einstein is of course a great Authority to appeal to, but you know, he was wrong about Quantum. His Faith ("deeply emotional conviction") in 'God' (order in physics) caused him to waste half his life trying to prove that 'God does not play dice' (indeterminacy is playing cosmic dice). There's a warning against putting too much faith in Order ('god') that explains less than Randomness (chance'). He could have capped relativity with discoveries in quantum, but he fought it because of Faith.