An Argument for God (cont.)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2013, 09:48 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 07:23 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:25 PM)Logisch Wrote:  I do at least appreciate that you are honest enough with the answer of, "I do not know" - however, it still makes me ponder how you came to the conclusion of something emergent and eternal in the first place.

No beef with you, just a different through process so I'm curious.

Your intellect, including the sum of everything you know, is the result of some emergent complex process. A process that we assume started 14.7 billion years ago with the big bang. What would an intellect look like that was the result of an eternal emergent complex process?

If reality is emergent now, why wouldn't we think it wasn't always emergent in the past?

Reality (to the best we can experience or explain it) is not emergent as things that are real around us, the universe itself, exists. Upon the big bang, it existed. Before the big bang, even at a quantum level things existed. There would have been no time for them to exist at that point. But you get the idea (I hope).

Our consciousness is "emergent" in the sense that you slowly develop awareness and understanding as you grow up. Reality is still reality, regardless of how you perceive it, regardless of how you want to think of it. A viewpoint on what it is cannot change what actually exists. If I call an apple an orange, it still exists as an apple no matter how much I want it to be one.

So is reality really emergent? Or is our understanding of it emergent? Is it a relevant term to use when referring to it?

Regarding an emergent or complex process one could look at yourself, as the human mind is one of the most complex animals when it comes to the brain and intellect. One would need to look no further to wonder what such an intellect would look like because we exist.

Regardless of how old we get and how much we understand of reality... it exists and is unchanging. The law of gravity, physics itself, the way the earth rotates around the sun, the asteroid belt, the milky way. It is incapable of caring whether or not we emerge as an intelligent species, or if we die off. It will continue without us.

Now, I see where you were sort of trailing off on that, but I still am not quite understanding where one would come to the conclusion of a deity existing in the first place and how they come to the conclusion that it is emergent and how they come to the conclusion that it's part of a complex process. I mean we have our own "complex" processes we can explain scientifically, but how would a person know that a deity that they cannot sense, smell, touch or talk to ... is part of a complex process?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
05-04-2013, 12:33 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 09:01 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 06:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your error is that you do not know what "sadist" means.

I think Chas is onto something here. If you have read the bible it's not all happy and joy...there's some pretty dark shit too. Why would god send a flood to cover the earth? He's god! You keep telling me how perfect he is...WELL then why? Why not just erase the memories of the people there or snap his omnipotent fingers and poof everything gone..clean slate...

A sadist takes pleasure in watching or participating in the suffering of another. They lack empathy. So they cannot really put themselves into the person suffering's position.

When did I tell you God was perfect? When did I start talking about the God of the Bible? You're making stuff up.

You never did answer the question. Is some amount of suffering good?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 12:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 09:01 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I think Chas is onto something here. If you have read the bible it's not all happy and joy...there's some pretty dark shit too. Why would god send a flood to cover the earth? He's god! You keep telling me how perfect he is...WELL then why? Why not just erase the memories of the people there or snap his omnipotent fingers and poof everything gone..clean slate...

A sadist takes pleasure in watching or participating in the suffering of another. They lack empathy. So they cannot really put themselves into the person suffering's position.

When did I tell you God was perfect? When did I start talking about the God of the Bible? You're making stuff up.

You never did answer the question. Is some amount of suffering good?

I don't think any suffering is good.. Perhaps you mean necessary? I think it depends on the individual, where some learn and become stronger, others never recover. But then saying necessary implies it was the only alternative. I'm not sure you can prove that.( I don't mean you personally, but in general).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 07:23 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your intellect, including the sum of everything you know, is the result of some emergent complex process. A process that we assume started 14.7 billion years ago with the big bang. What would an intellect look like that was the result of an eternal emergent complex process?

We don't assume it started 14.7 billion years ago, that's what your doing. We know with a high degree of certainty that it started 13.82 billion years.

It's the result of a complex process, but how can you say it's emergent? What is it emerging from? I guess your meaning to imply reality is an emergent process of god. Are you a pantheist?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 12:48 PM)Dirtnapper324 Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 12:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  When did I tell you God was perfect? When did I start talking about the God of the Bible? You're making stuff up.

You never did answer the question. Is some amount of suffering good?

I don't think any suffering is good.. Perhaps you mean necessary? I think it depends on the individual, where some learn and become stronger, others never recover. But then saying necessary implies it was the only alternative. I'm not sure you can prove that.( I don't mean you personally, but in general).

Let me rephrase the question. Is it always evil to let someone suffer or cause one to suffer? For instance, if mom makes one of her boys eat brussels sprouts, does that make her an evil sadist? What if she outs one of the kids on a time out?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 01:05 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 12:52 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 07:23 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your intellect, including the sum of everything you know, is the result of some emergent complex process. A process that we assume started 14.7 billion years ago with the big bang. What would an intellect look like that was the result of an eternal emergent complex process?

We don't assume it started 14.7 billion years ago, that's what your doing. We know with a high degree of certainty that it started 13.82 billion years.

It's the result of a complex process, but how can you say it's emergent? What is it emerging from? I guess your meaning to imply reality is an emergent process of god. Are you a pantheist?

You are correct, the current consensus is around 13.77 billion years, plus or minus 37 million years. I'm not sure where I got 14.7 from.

Anyways I think it might be better to do a thread on emergent complexity.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Let me rephrase the question. Is it always evil to let someone suffer or cause one to suffer? For instance, if mom makes one of her boys eat brussels sprouts, does that make her an evil sadist? What if she outs one of the kids on a time out?

I think the question is a little too nice.

How about this: Mom makes one of her boys eat brussel sprouts (he gags), gives another one of her boys a horribly painful genetic disease (he dies in a year), and gives the last of her boys an entire cake and a new Playstation 4. Is she an evil sadist?

...it would rather be a man... [who] plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them with aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 12:48 PM)Dirtnapper324 Wrote:  I don't think any suffering is good.. Perhaps you mean necessary? I think it depends on the individual, where some learn and become stronger, others never recover. But then saying necessary implies it was the only alternative. I'm not sure you can prove that.( I don't mean you personally, but in general).

Let me rephrase the question. Is it always evil to let someone suffer or cause one to suffer? For instance, if mom makes one of her boys eat brussels sprouts, does that make her an evil sadist? What if she outs one of the kids on a time out?

No, I don't think so. Although the case could be made,IMO, that anyone that makes someone eat brussel sprouts could be evil. No But what if she made him eat them everyday, all day. Or that she starved them , everyday, for years. All the while having the ability to feed him? Would you define that as cruel, or letting them suffer for their own good?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 12:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 09:01 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I think Chas is onto something here. If you have read the bible it's not all happy and joy...there's some pretty dark shit too. Why would god send a flood to cover the earth? He's god! You keep telling me how perfect he is...WELL then why? Why not just erase the memories of the people there or snap his omnipotent fingers and poof everything gone..clean slate...

A sadist takes pleasure in watching or participating in the suffering of another. They lack empathy. So they cannot really put themselves into the person suffering's position.

When did I tell you God was perfect? When did I start talking about the God of the Bible? You're making stuff up.

You never did answer the question. Is some amount of suffering good?

You don't need to tell me anything. I was only musing on your sadism remark to Chas.

I think my thoughts on suffering have already been covered. That being said, since you seem to issues with comprehension, when you asked, "Is some amount of suffering good?" my answer is no.

Tell me do you sleep, nude on the floor in the dead of winter, without heat, simply to appreciate having blankets and a mattress?

Your view of life seems to be rather myopic.


[Image: mrhanky.jpg]

Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
05-04-2013, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2013 01:34 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(05-04-2013 01:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 12:52 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  We don't assume it started 14.7 billion years ago, that's what your doing. We know with a high degree of certainty that it started 13.82 billion years.

It's the result of a complex process, but how can you say it's emergent? What is it emerging from? I guess your meaning to imply reality is an emergent process of god. Are you a pantheist?

You are correct, the current consensus is around 13.77 billion years, plus or minus 37 million years. I'm not sure where I got 14.7 from.

Anyways I think it might be better to do a thread on emergent complexity.

No, WMAP results were that the universe is 13.73 with an uncertainty of 120 million years. Meaning it ranges from 13.85 to 13.61. The new results show it is 13.83, well within the range of the previous results.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy...years.html Wrote:The Universe is 13.82 billion years old.

The age of the Universe is a little bit higher than we expected. A few years ago, the WMAP spacecraft looked at the Universe much as Planck has, and for the time got the best determination of the cosmic age: 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years old.

Planck has found that the Universe is nearly 100 million years older than that: 13.82 billion years.

At first glance you might think this is a really different number. But look again. The uncertainty in the WMAP age is 120 million years. That means the best estimate is 13.73 billion years, but it could easily be 13.85 or 13.61. Anything in that range is essentially indistinguishable in the WMAP data, and 13.73 is just in the middle of that range.

And that range includes 13.82 billion years. It’s at the high end, but that’s not a big deal. It’s completely consistent with the older estimate, but Planck’s measurements are considered to be more accurate. It will become the new benchmark for astronomers.

Edit: 13.772+/-0.059 Gyr from http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5225
p.s. Gyr is Gigayear which is a billion years, just so you know.

I admit a prior estimate was 13.77 but the current consensus appears to be 13.82

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: