Support NeoGAF

[NEOPARADIGM]

Our intelligence IS the universe, as is all the rest.

 

[Satyamdas]

Men LITERALLY invented him. This is a fact.

 

[Stinkles]

Yeah, they did. And the wrote it down. And used it to enforce laws, etc.

 

[Stinkles]

Men LITERALLY are an aspect of the universe. This is a fact. So then the universe created God?!

My point is that the concept of god, as defined in the OP, is purely anthropomorphic. Only a sentient being would imagine, or even need to imagine the universe was created by a sentient being.

A star doesn't need to think, and it's a far more important aspect of the universe than sentience, as far as we know.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

My point is that the concept of god.

My point was that humanity and our intelligence is a part of the natural evolution of stardust and inanimate matter. All of our intelligence and concepts therefore are products of the universe itself. So attempting to define the concepts and creations of man as being something inherently artificial and untrue is ignorant of this very crucial facet of our existence. Stars dont "Need" to think. But the life cycle of stars eventually evolved into humans! woohoo!

Man does not live IN the universe Man IS the universe.

 

[jaxword]

As a kid watching Star Trek, I always wondered what parts of the Bible would be re-re-re-interpreted to refer to parallel universes, moving along the time axis, and other such ideas stemming from quantum physics.

Eventually they'll have to be, to remain competitive in the philosophical market.

As basic ideas about quantum physics disseminate into the public consciousness, like time travel, people start looking for more coherent explanations for reality.

 

[rdrr gnr]

My point was that humanity and our intelligence is a part of the natural evolution of stardust and inanimate matter. All of our intelligence and concepts therefore are products of the universe itself. So attempting to define the concepts and creations of man as being something inherently artificial and untrue is ignorant of this very crucial facet of our existence. Stars dont "Need" to think. But the life cycle of a stars eventually evolved into humans! woohoo!

Man does not live IN the universe Man IS the universe.

What? That's some hippie nonsense right there. That piece of logic gives undeserved validity to literally anything. Are you saying my belief in a flying teapot that orbits Planet Nreugo in the undiscovered Xyujuk Galaxy is worthy of anything, simply because it is humanly thus universally created? These types of arguments need to focus on hard facts and rationality. Not philosophy.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

What?

I would be forced to dumb it down to such a degree that it isn't worth my time.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I would be forced to dumb it down to such a degree that it isn't worth my time.

Expected answer is expected. These nonsense arguments get us nowhere.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Expected answer is expected. These nonsense arguments get us nowhere.

Here I will give you a hint. Nothing you posted is derived from anything I said. So reread it a few times, then read what you posted and reflect.

 

[onipex]

Actually, it is wrong to call it an explosion. The big bang was a rapid and almost instantaneous expansion.
God is the result of our vast unknowing. We are at our very core, evolutionarily adept at seeking and finding pattern. God simply fills this innate need to know, for some.

Edit: My last post before this one was sarcasm. I was parodying the typical answer from believers.

A rapid expansion still doesn't answer all those questions though.

Even when we know the idea of God still exist. Even for those that have a solid understanding.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

A rapid expansion still doesn't answer all those questions though.

It doesn't answer any questions. It does help explain some observations tho. Its a scientific model and theory for one possible mechanism by which the universe "began." There are a plethora of issues with said theory. And as has been touched on in various other threads and I do not wish to revisit our understanding of the very basic laws of the universe is tenuous at best.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Here I will give you a hint. Nothing you posted is derived from anything I said. So reread it a few times, then read what you posted and reflect.

Sorry if I am unable to comprehend contrived florid ramblings. If you would like to clarify, I'd be happy to provide a more germane response.

 

[DefectiveReject]

The guy is right.
Man invented God, in a time of fear. To create something bigger than himself, an all seeing power you will always watch you to ensure you do no wrong. Also a tool for the church to gain power.
God doesnt like you, burn at the stake. E.t.c.

You know those pesky Greeks and what not who thought Gods lived in the sea and the mountains e.t.c. As they didn't understand nature and the very fact that nature causes thunder and choppy seas e.t.c. As they didnt understand, they created Gods as surely that was the only explanation.

I understand fully that some people need to believe that there is something bigger than themselves, an approver as such. A father figure, something bigger so that when that person dies they don't just end. but reality and common-sense says, when you die, you die.

You think that Lions and Tigers and Bears (oh-my) trundle around concerned about whether a God gives a shit about what they do?
They just know they exist and that they need to survive.
Man needed God, so man created him.

 

[onipex]

It doesn't answer any questions. It does help explain some observations tho. Its a scientific model and theory for one possible mechanism by which the universe "began." There are a plethora of issues with said theory. And as has been touched on in various other threads and I do not wish to revisit our understanding of the very basic laws of the universe is tenuous at best.

Nothing to say to this ,but I agree.

 

[Zaptruder]

I would be forced to dumb it down to such a degree that it isn't worth my time.

The ego and arrogance of your posts really gets in the way of your ideas and messages a lot of the time.

It's a problem I have too, but at least I recognize it as a problem - and attempt to work on it from time to time.

My point was that humanity and our intelligence is a part of the natural evolution of stardust and inanimate matter. All of our intelligence and concepts therefore are products of the universe itself. So attempting to define the concepts and creations of man as being something inherently artificial and untrue is ignorant of this very crucial facet of our existence. Stars dont "Need" to think. But the life cycle of stars eventually evolved into humans! woohoo!

Man does not live IN the universe Man IS the universe.

But really that last line is some hippy bullshit.

I mean, if that's the way you want to go - the more technically correct way of expressing it is: Man is part of the universe.

I don't think many would debate that.

 

[rdrr gnr]

A rapid expansion still doesn't answer all those questions though.

Even when we know the idea of God still exist. Even for those that have a solid understanding.

Nothing will ever answer all the questions. Even if we were to discover the origins of our universe completely, account for every particle, every star, every galaxy, and the nature of abiogenesis; a nebulous, indeterminate, non-intervening, sentient Creator will always have room to exist. My issue with these types of debates is that they have no resolution. If one cannot make claims or define that which one defends, then don't even bother. It always divulges into a philosophical and rhetorical debate. It results in a bunch of flowery language and enters the realm of pseudoscience and statements with no real evidence.

The ego and arrogance of your posts really gets in the way of your ideas and messages a lot of the time.

It's a problem I have to, but at least I recognize it as a problem - and attempt to work on it from time to time.

It's a pathetic attempt to avoid dealing in facts. All good arguments can be presented simply and efficiently.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

Are you saying my belief [are] worthy of [something] simply because [they are of the universe]?

Yes.

 

[foodtaster]

But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature

This is why there will always be a God

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Sorry if I am unable to comprehend contrived florid ramblings.

Apology accepted, I was instantly aware you would be unable to grasp the meaning so refrained from the mandatory dozen posts it would take me to explain it.

Man invented God, in a time of fear.

Totally, because thats the only concept of god that has ever existed. And as we all know it was certainly the first...

Mother of god.

 

[Necromanti]

Since nothing can really truly be defined in absolutes, I like thinking of things in terms of probability with the evidence available. The God as defined in religion and religion itself are things that have a low probability of being the most accurate portrayal of reality. I contend that the universe itself is "God/a god/goddess" if one wants to put it that way, and we are (and life itself is) but one of the infinite manifestations of its existence.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

It's a problem I have to, but at least I recognize it as a problem - and attempt to work on it from time to time.

My problem with your posts is that they are often inane and you use words and terminology that are not only incorrect but that you dont even seem to understand. Arrogance is acceptable arrogance combined with being kinda dim is not.

But really that last line is some hippy bullshit.

No it really isn't. Its an important facet of our existence that due to the very nature of perception is created. Its a well documented cognitive bottleneck and is being expressed constantly throughout the thread.

Nothing will ever answer all the questions.

How could you possibly support this assertion?

 

[DefectiveReject]

Apology accepted, I was instantly aware you would be unable to grasp the meaning so refrained from the mandatory dozen posts it would take me to explain it.



Totally, because thats the only concept of god that has ever existed. And as we all know it was certainly the first...

Mother of god.

Man didn't understand so created a deity to explain, god of this, god of that, god of the other. Man feared it, so created a god.
No matter what you believe nor I, it's your very own opinion. You're no less or more right than me.

Spoiler

obviously I'm right though. God exists only for those who believe in him, like Santa and the Easter bunny. I believe they all meet for BBQ's on a Sunday

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Man didn't understand so created a deity to explain, god of this, god of that, god of the other. Man feared it, so created a god.
No matter what you believe nor I, it's your very own opinion. You're no less or more right than me.

Spoiler

obviously I'm right though. God exists only for those who believe in him, like Santa and the Easter bunny. I believe they all meet for BBQ's on a Sunday

Mind bottling argumentative technique.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Apology accepted, I was instantly aware you would be unable to grasp the meaning so refrained from the mandatory dozen posts it would take me to explain it.

Why do you refrain? 24,000 character post limit. I would like you to simply elucidate the claims you are making. My point is that, once you begin to deal with such numinous and exotic language, the argument takes a turn for the worse.

Spoiler

See what I did there?

Man didn't understand so created a deity to explain, god of this, god of that, god of the other. Man feared it, so created a god.
No matter what you believe nor I, it's your very own opinion. You're no less or more right than me.

Spoiler

obviously I'm right though. God exists only for those who believe in him, like Santa and the Easter bunny. I believe they all meet for BBQ's on a Sunday

Don't even bother. His level of thinking almost deserves worship and endless praise. We are but mere plebeians confined to our pathetic rationality and science and facts.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I would like you to simply elucidate the claims you are making.

What claim have you imagined that I have made that requires me to support?

Protip: I have made no claims beyond the blatantly obvious. Which is why you attempting to argue is so laughable. That you think I have is indicative of our relative levels of understanding. Yes, i saw your horrible sophomoric use of a thesaurus, congratulations.

 

[Zaptruder]

My problem with your posts is that they are often inane and you use words and terminology that are not only incorrect but that you dont even seem to understand. Arrogance is acceptable arrogance combined with being kinda dim is not.

Arrogance is acceptable from the vantage point of a person who uses argument to stroke his own ego.

Arrogance gets in the way of communicating thoughts and ideas with others (after all, they've got their own egos to maintain as well). Help others understand - and in time they may return with elucidations that help you get past your own bottleneck in thinking.

No it really isn't. Its an important facet of our existence that due to the very nature of perception is created. Its a well documented cognitive bottleneck and is being expressed constantly throughout the thread.

Can you explain this is more detail? The idea is far from common or intuitive to grasp. Even giving it charity, I can only grasp what you're saying in the sense that it is a romantic notion - i.e. the inevitable evolution of humans and human intelligence is the universe itself evolving intelligence.

 

[rdrr gnr]

What claim have you imagined that I have made that requires me to support?

Protip: I have made no claims beyond the blatantly obvious. Which is why you attempting to argue is so laughable. That you think I have is indicative of our relative levels of understanding. Yes, i saw your horrible sophomoric use of a thesaurus, congratulations.

No thesaurus. English major.
So you concede that you have not contributed anything but philosophical banalities? The point of the OP is: does science disprove the notion of a deistic "God." All you've done is muddy the discussion.

 

[kevm3]

These sorts of threads always devolve into the same thing. Each side believes what they believe and very little ever changes. There will always be a 'gray area' when it comes to pure knowing, especially since the universe is so massive and we've sampled so very little of it. Believing in God at this point in time ultimately comes down to faith. Me personally? I choose to believe in God.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Arrogance is acceptable from the vantage point of a person who uses argument to stroke his own ego.

Arrogance is acceptable when it does not get in the way of communication. Being arrogant and inane is a double whammy of derp derp.

Can you explain this is more detail?

Explain what? The second part of your request is not related to the first. You have to narrow the field down a bit.

So you concede that you have not contributed anything but philosophical banalities?

Is that what I said? If not its safe to assume that is not what I am saying. You still dont seem to grasp what I have said tho. After my first response in this thread (or someone else saying the same thing) the thread could have been locked. The question was answered, there is no room for debate, haha.

 

[rdrr gnr]

These sorts of threads always devolve into the same thing. Each side believes what they believe and very little ever changes. There will always be a 'gray area' when it comes to pure knowing, especially since the universe is so massive and we've sampled so very little of it. Believing in God at this point in time ultimately comes down to faith. Me personally? I choose to believe in God.

Terrible. Faith? You mean unsubstantiated belief? Irrationality? You can choose to believe w/e you want. The issue is, is there evidence of it?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Terrible. Faith? You mean unsubstantiated belief? Irrationality? You can choose to believe w/e you want. The issue is, is there evidence of it?

Haha evidence of what. You keep typing but saying nothing.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

... the more technically correct way of expressing it is: Man is part of the universe.

Arbitrary distinction and leads to infinite regress.

There's nothing "more technically correct" about it at all.

 

[DefectiveReject]

What makes you believe in God?

What makes me not?
Everything can and will eventually be explained. For me, everything just happens because it happens. Shit happens. My life happens the way it does because of decisions I and others around me make. You make your own luck e.t.c.

 

[Zaptruder]

Arrogance is acceptable when it does not get in the way of communication. Being arrogant and inane is a double whammy of derp derp.



Explain what? The second part of your request is not related to the first. You have to narrow the field down a bit.

But your arrogance absolutely does get in the way of discussion. We're discussing your arrogance right now.

And your attempt to undermine me by been dismissive shows that you're not adequately following the flow of conversation - is getting in the way of discussion.

On one hand, you insist others thoroughly read and reread your posts and comprehend, while you yourself fail to follow the elementary structure of conversation.

(Paraphrasing)
You post: Humans are the universe

I post: That's nonsense.

You post: No it's not

I post: Then explain.

The topic at hand is humans are the universe. There are two topics of conversation between our posts - one dealing with the issue of arrogance and the other dealing with your statement that 'man is the universe'.

 

[DefectiveReject]

Lol.
Man is but an organism living on a speck of dust in the great vastness.

 

[maharg]

I won't lie, I read this as "Does Quantum Leap disprove the idea of God?"

...

That would be an awesome thread. Except for the part where Sam was being forced to leap around

Spoiler

by god

.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

We're discussing your arrogance right now.

You brought it up and nothing else you have posted is coherent enough for me to respond to. You must pose a cogent question for me to respond to it.

You post: Humans are the universe

Wrong, my first post was that you cant "disprove a negative" whatever the fuck that means. The thread could have been ended there with the OPs question resolved. My next post was a simple reference that man is not an alien entity living within the universe but an aspect of the universe itself. So perceiving the actions and concepts of man as a foreign unnatural thing is inherently silly in response to several posters doing exactly that.

You being unable to comprehend any of this ask a series of ever increasingly clueless questions that I cannot respond to.

That would be an awesome thread. Except for the part where Sam was being forced to leap around by god.

Satan was in the Halloween episode as well!

 

[Zaptruder]

Arbitrary distinction and leads to infinite regress.

There's nothing "more technically correct" about it at all.

Is it that arbitrary?

The universe in common parlance is understood as the complete collection of content, energy and matter that operates according to common physical laws with a common origin that covers stars, galaxies, matter, anti matter, dark energy, dark matter, planets, and the life forms including sentient creatures that evolve on them.

Humans describe the species homo sapiens that populate the planet of earth in...

They're pretty goddamn different things.

It's like saying that the number 42 represents the complete set of real numbers.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Is it that arbitrary?

This is an example of those two qualities I was talking about earlier that don't mix well.

 

[iapetus]

In a non-deterministic universe made of just matter and interactions, I can't see where a God could fit in.

I have no need of that particular hypothesis.

Definitely not, but in this specific case it's enough for me not to want to have anything to do with it, specially with how loony I personally find the concept.

So you're making a subjective decision to treat religion differently to other subjects with respect to basic logic? That's fine, naturally, but don't go claiming you're on the side of science and common sense.

There is no concept for the beginning of our universe that is proven. Nobody knows. It takes faith to believe in any current theory whether it is religious or science based.

So, pre-Newton, Intelligent Falling should have been treated as a valid concept?

if someone is saying 'a clever person agrees with me' it makes me instantly skeptical, whatever statement they're trying to support.

Indeed. Doubly so when the other side is also trying to claim that the same clever person agrees with them. There's a bizarrely desperate need among people on both sides of this sort of debate to associate Newton and Einstein with their own side and Hitler with the other side. Message to these people: not only are your arguments risible, but the goal in the first place is feeble-minded. Stop it.

I'm not smart enough to post in any thread that uses the word "Quantum". That's real talk.

You are not alone, as a number of the comments in this thread demonstrate.

'Less likely' is an incorrect term to put it, since there is no mounting evidence against it.

And since any attempt to ascribe a probability to the existence of God and track how it varies is inevitably purely subjective, and entirely pseudo-science.

A proper term would be 'less interesting'. Religious creation stories suddenly become way too simple.

I'd argue that God is inherently uninteresting to science. You can't apply the scientific method to something that provides no testable predictions, and while 'God done it' might be a perfect Occam's razor explanation for everything, it doesn't help us reach any interesting results in any way whatsoever.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Haha evidence of what. You keep typing but saying nothing.

God. His reasons for believing in one or him. There is simply NO EVIDENCE.

Is that what I said? If not its safe to assume that is not what I am saying. You still dont seem to grasp what I have said tho. After my first response in this thread (or someone else saying the same thing) the thread could have been locked. The question was answered, there is no room for debate, haha.

Yeah, after all this, seems as though you haven't said much of anything. Look, I'll make it easy for you. The OP asked if "Quantum Theory disproved God?" My reply was that, a nebulous, indeterminate, non-intervening Creator (God via OP) is so intangible and inherently unfalsifiable that the the question is not worth asking until you establish claims. My criticism of your post was that it adds to the nonsense that surrounds these debates. My criticism is that your entire contribution to this thread doesn't even begin to answer the question. All you've done is redefine that un-falsifiability in a philosophical sense and pushed that disgrace of a thought out for an answer. You claim the nature of the universe and man allows for nothing conceived to be artificial or untrue. I say otherwise. I saw we must deal in scientific and rational terms. There are claims made that are true, and those that are not. I do not believe that simple existence merits validity. Would you kindly bless me with a response? I know I'm not worthy.

 

[iapetus]

Wrong, my first post was that you cant "disprove a negative" whatever the fuck that means. The thread could have been ended there with the OPs question resolved.

Bollocks. Because:

1) You can disprove a negative. Consider "No even prime number exists" as an example.
2) You can rewrite most negative claims as a positive one.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Bollocks. Because:

1) You can disprove a negative. Consider "No even prime number exists" as an example.
2) You can rewrite most negative claims as a positive one.

The question doesn't even have to deal with disproving a negative. If one claims that a creator exists, there is a burden of proof, thus a tangible and ultimately resolvable issue. The simple notion that a God "could" exist, not is a reason enough to believe.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Bollocks. Because:

1) You can disprove a negative. Consider "No even prime number exists" as an example.
2) You can rewrite most negative claims as a positive one.

The context is within empirical science. Disprove means absolutely nothing in this context. You can fail to substantiate a claim, but a null hypothesis is not "disproving" anything.

The question doesn't even have to deal with disproving a negative. If one claims that a creator exists, there is a burden of proof, thus a tangible and ultimately resolvable issue. The simple notion that a God "could" exist, not is a reason enough to believe.

Seriously, what are you talking about? Who is talking about God? We are talking about simple logic and the scientific method for fucks sake.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'd argue that God is inherently uninteresting to science. You can't apply the scientific method to something that provides no testable predictions, and while 'God done it' might be a perfect Occam's razor explanation for everything, it doesn't help us reach any interesting results in any way whatsoever.

No, Ockham's razor and "god did it" are mortal enemies, because the razor always favors explanations with the most explanatory and predictive power. It's not opposed to complexity at all, rather it says that if two things have more or less equal footings, then the one that makes the least number of unjustified assumptions is preferable.

"God did it" is as you say utterly useless because it provides nothing testable or predictive, but not only that, it doesn't preclude other explanations either. I would venture as far as to say that it isn't an explanation at all, just as "John did it" would not be an adequate explanation for the question "how did he perform that magic trick?" Even if god did do it, there are mechanisms by which he did it. "He has the ability to do anything" is not an explanation either.

 

[markot]

When you're argument is 'anything is technically possible' you are on pretty shakey ground >_>?

Technically the very nature of reality is not an absolute. You may all be figments of my deranged imagination for all I can know.

But I think itd be best to base our beliefs on the idea that we can find the truth no matter how out of reach it may seem, using science, facts, testable theories and evidence, not that we simply cant disprove it as untrue.

When you keep hiding in the shadows, moving back, retreating at every advance of science and light, you may be on a theory that has no solid ground upon which it rests, and it would be best to assign it to the dustbin of history along with all the other things we have relegated to it, the myths, beliefs, and truths of the past that have proven to be anything but.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

No, Ockham's razor and "god did it" are mortal enemies, because the razor always favors explanations with the most explanatory and predictive power.

Wrong, its about simplicity when dealing with unknowns.

When you keep hiding in the shadows, moving back, retreating at every advance of science and light, you may be on a theory that has no solid ground upon which it rests, and it would be best to assign it to the dustbin of history along with all the other things we have relegated to it, the myths, beliefs, and truths of the past that have proven to be anything but.

Yeah Hume was a fucking moron.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Wrong its about simplicity when dealing with unknowns.

It is not about simplicity. It has to do with the # of assumptions a claim makes. Simpler answer = better answer is wrong.

Yeah Hume was a fucking moron.

Holy shit. I would love to read some of your published literature.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

It is not about simplicity. It has to do with the # of assumptions a claim makes. Simpler answer = better answer is wrong.

Thanks for restating what I just said as if you corrected me. Protip: Decreasing the number of assumptions is simplifying... When dealing with unknowns all other things being equal the fewest assumptions IE the more simple of the two answers is superior.

Holy shit. I would love to read some of your published literature.

/facepalm