Data IS king you’re absolutely right. And that is what I’m simply proposing, that we attempt to collect data. If the universe is a living thing can we probe it and introduce stimulus? If so how long will it yake untill we see a reaction? Assuming the physics of such a large being it would take a while. This is where simulating this comes in with a program we can speed up the process and compare to other creatures and their reaction to similar stimuli. Is it predictable? Can we communicate or do we even want to attempt to. I’m simply suggesting that everything could be a single organism and I think our ancestors and their primitive brains called it “god” simply because it was needed for survival.
I want to point out that my hypothesis is not suggesting a biblical god nor any other religion. Fuck i don’t even think it has powers outside of just being here. Nor would I think it can reproduce. Maybe it can but how we calculate that is suggesting we simulate a big bang within a big bang. Do I think it created us? Hell no nor do i think we’re here to worship. Im just saying that in order for “god” to be a part of our natural world these are the rules it would have to play by.
Why? You have to be far more specific, since existing and living are not the same. Also the generic claim seems unfalsifiable, so I think you’re onto a loser here, but please present your rationale, and lets take a look.
Yes, based on the dictionary definition.
No, based on that same definition.
No, again based on that same definition.
Again no, and again for the same reason.
Just a thought, but maybe you should have started by defining what you think alive means, since those questions are all easily answered by a dictionary. Also who says a deity must be alive, my coffee table exists, it is not alive according to the dictionary. Since you are ruling out any kind of deity, this is seems an impossible undertaking, as again the claim seems unfalsifiable.
I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, I cannot do otherwise. I don’t believe any deity exists, or anything supernatural, nor do I believe they are possible, and for the same reason. I cannot however demonstrate that they are not possible, or that they do not exist, anymore than I can demonstrate we are not shadowed by invisible mermaids.
No point, as one could easily imagine a deity that was not alive in the sense organic life is. Some god claims are falsifiable, and others not, I disbelieve them all, but it seems futile to try and falsify the unfalsifiable.
What labels are you suggesting we use, and how would we acquire them, given we are human, this again seems an impossible task. Or did you mean to suggest we need new descriptors, to examine new ideas, in which case fine, I don’t see how this will help you falsify, what has the appearance of an unfalsifiable idea, and demonstrating that some notions of deities can be falsified, doesn’t do this.
There are people who would say that’s not even a god if it’s not supernatural.
The gods typically on offer are supernatural for a very good reason: it puts them beyond empirical observation and therefore not only unproven, but unprovABLE. Religion needs that in order to function.
I’ve often pointed out that as soon as such a god intervenes in the natural world, it becomes part of it, and violates its “otherness” … so they have a pretty bad logical conundrum there. On the one hand god has to be remote and ineffable and Elsewhere in order for their random assertions about the deity to go unchallenged, and on the other hand, people are looking for protection and comfort and leadership and so they want a god who is in THIS universe, doing useful things.
What happens in practice is they point to any good thing or outcome that randomly happens and claim it’s god, and any bad thing or outcome is Satan or a “test of faith” or punishment. But no one has a philospher’s stone-like quest going on to measure and quantify any sort of trace of god in the natural world.
In the novel, A Hundred Years of Solitude, the main protagonist is on a lifelong quest to find such evidence. He’s a humble Colombian villager but a mysterious stranger, the leader of a gypsy tribe, comes and introduces him, essentially to science (it’s really pseudoscience like alchemy but within the book’s world-building, this stuff actually works, there are potions and antidotes and even flying carpets).
Eventually the protagonist becomes obsessed with photography, which is presented as a “time machine” that captures time. He is convinced that if he photographs everything in the village, one of his daguerrotypes will have god revealed in it. In the end he goes insane in this quest, realizing the one thing he can’t handle: that he isn’t in any way immortal, that this life is all there is. He ends up tied to a chestnut tree in the front yard, bellowing nonsense. Only the local priest understands him, and when he speaks of what he has found, the priest, concerned for his own faith, leaves and never visits him again.
I think this book is a pretty good metaphorical explanation of the human condition, lol.
1 Like
Have to? It took less than ten seconds, for me to find a notion of deity that thwarts your arbitrary criteria.
" In Aristotelian philosophy, the deity, often referred to as the “Prime Mover” or “Unmoved Mover,” is a being that is the ultimate source of motion and change in the universe, while being itself unmoved and unchanging. This deity is not a traditional God, but rather the principle of perfect, eternal self-contemplation, the ultimate cause of all things, and the goal towards which all things strive."
Ok this is where we need to cut the weeds. I presented a way to test this hypothesis and I’m going to attempt experiments. fortunately facts don’t care about feelings nor beliefs and so this will either provide factual evidence of the existence of at least something living beyond our understanding of physical capacity as its huge af. If I’m shown that there is no responce to probing such a thing then I’ll be satisfied with that. Religious people hold these views for the same reason a cat thats never seen a snake reacts to a cucumber. Its inate behavior that formed through evolution. Why did evolution make a whole species lie to itself? And I’m sorry but I’m not trying to satisfy a religions world view. Im trying to find the facts.
All I am saying is the only way to avoid bias and find a scientific backbone is to try to disprove my own world view. I don’t understand why atheists have taken defense when our only way to stand firm against religion is by this standard. Some of you have claimed your not even interested in whether god exists. Than why even comment? Because you want proof! That is our driving force! I really enjoyed this and I’ll agree I’m not very good at debating as some of you are but intelligence doesn’t get us no where unless we use it to find facts.
You have yet to justify your original claim, and a whole raft of other subsequent claims, that I listed critical objections to above. Here is the main claim again then:
Please “prove” that no deity of any kind exists, as I already pointed out this is an unfalsifiable claim, and though you haven’t actually addressed that, it suggests you cannot, unless you “know” something that has escaped the rest of humanity?
Well that’s clearly not all you were saying? You still have not explained why you think all concepts of a deity need be alive in the same sense organic life is? I even gave you an Aristotelian example of a concept of deity that refuted that notion.
I doubt that is true of all religious people, and it is a massive mistake to imagine subjective religious beliefs, are automatically indicative of low intelligence.
Ok let me answer you simply. I was suggesting that if you can provide evidence to the contrary of a biological being which is the universe that would be sufficient enough evidence to dispute my claim. And I would argue that is sufficient enough evidence against any claim of any god. On the comparison of religious peoples beliefs and how they’re conected to the behaviors and needs for survival. That has been sufficiently proven and does not undermine human intelligence even though I would argue human intelligence is a by product of evolution. In actuality to the claim that I’m not just saying im attempting to disprove my own world view i feel you misunderstand. I dont believe in this claim and am wholeheartedly an atheist. But I am attempting this because that is what science calls for. That we poof for the next frontier. Now on to me addressing your response. I’ll map out what this “god” would look like as all its parts. We are fairly certain that the universe only holds physical matter. That matter is all in relation to itself and there is no such thing as the supernatural. I would hope you agree with this. I will continue in a moment with the rest ask me a specific question without filler I will respond in the next hour. Emergency
@Matthew, If you use the quote function by highlighting text, then selecting the quote icon that appears, we will know who you are responding to, and specifically what about.
I just quoted your original claim? This looks nothing like it, nor does it address the fact the claim seems unfalsifiable, do you know what unfalsifiable means?
Great, except countless deities have been imagined that are not premised as biological entities, but supernatural ones, and you need to present that argument, try a simple syllogism as a starting point.
I don’t believe you, please offer something to support your assertion? Perhaps a citation, and it’s just a suggestion, but you might want to stop using words like proof and proved, for words like evidenced. Proofs are either mathematical or logical, so unless you’re claiming to have a mathematical or logical proof, it just seems like misplaced hubris.
What claim? Everyone knows you’re an atheist, it’s in your profile. All one need do is click on any username to know if someone has identified as an atheist, theists or agnostic.
You are claiming to know what the whole of science calls for? I wasn’t aware of any serious scientific research into disproving deities, and again it is an unfalsifiable claim, and these are by definition unscientific.
Who is we? Not having evidence for the existence of something, and knowing that it does not exist, are not the same, there is an epistemological burden of proof to a claim, and the lack of a belief, is not a claim.
That is entirely moot, since your claim:
Encompasses any possible notion of deity, now are you going to “prove” this claim?
Again a claim, again no attempt to evidence it?
No I don’t agree, I already stated that I think the claim is unfalsifiable, and that I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims. Do you understand what an unfalsifiable claim is, and what this rationally infers?
One more suggestion, try not to post walls of texts like that, and quote specific parts of posts you are responding to, it makes your posts much easier to read, and the context much easier to understand. Especially for third parties.
Well, perhaps you should do those experiments and then come back with the results. Continued iteration of your assertion / hypothesis is like running really fast with one foot nailed to the floor…you’re moving quickly but not getting anywhere.
1 Like
How do you highlight text? Also for Sheldon you are stating that the existence of this sort of being cannot be proven or disproven? I just want to be clear.
Press your left mouse button, and drag your cursor over it.
I don’t know what “sort of being” you’re referring to, but it is moot, since you claimed:
So that is the claim you need to address, not “kinds” of deities you think are falsifiable, and I am pretty sure your claim as quoted, is unfalsifiable.
Im using my phone communicate and I’m all im able to do is copy paste and share. How to show I’m directly responding to you I’m not sure how to do. And yes you are correct in that statement by definition was falsifiable. I overlooked that and was confused.
See the pop up with the options? Choose Quote and a response window will open with the quoted text. You then can write what you want under that…
Actually, there is physical proof of existence. We can prove that black swans exist because we can find one (or several), photograph it, capture it, analyse it, etc. Likewise, we can prove that unicorns exist if we capture one. But we cannot prove the negative, i.e. that unicorns don’t exist. The fact that we haven’t caught one (yet) does not prove anything.
Likewise with gods. If we could “catch” a god, display it, measure it, etc., and verify it is indeed a god by fulfilling the criteria we set up beforehand, we have proven its existence. But as with the unicorns, we can’t physically prove its nonexistence.
So we are left with logical and mathematical proofs. With all the problems that follow, including proving negatives.
Yes and that is what I’m trying to explain that my template for an existing “god” that being the universe as a single living organism, is the only type of “god” that can be proven using what is limited to science. I want to come back to this thread with evidence and present it so I’m going to contact a science professor here in Colorado to see if we can come up with some experiments. If you would like to throw out ideas I’m all ears. I didn’t mean to rush my argument and I spoke poorly for that I except the L. Thank you for your insites and advice.
And there is another grey area.
Organisms like rickettsia are more sophisticated than viruses, yet–like viruses–they require a living cell to invade and grind out copies of themselves, but they still have cell walls and are susceptible to antibiotics.
So they are almost like an over-simplified bacteria, and they cause diseases like typhus and Rocky Mountain spotted fever (along with several others).
There are many grey areas in nature, and definitions are not always exact and precise.
How could I possibly show you evidence of this claim? Why would I need to show you evidence? Why don’t you simply believe me? Are you calling me a liar? Do I appear to have some ulterior motive for making the claim?
Look, it’s really easy to get caught up in the weeds here. I was abducted by aliens, placed in a cell with an industrial strength toilet. The toilet turned out to be God and if I stepped off my mat a rocket would come out of the toilet, go up my butt and send me into a red portal into Hell.
Believe me yet? How could I make that up? You really think I’m lying, don’t you? Sounds like you’ve got trust issues …