The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

Thats a rhetorical way of saying you don’t think it is logical…my question was why don’t you think it is logical, basically? or more specifically what particular thing stands out the most as being unreasonable with respect to God existing, any more than any other thing… I would imagine that you might say because there hasn’t been any hard evidence or you haven’t seen it. but have you seen a black hole? have you seen an electron…did you watch everything the scientists did to be sure they were correct and not erring? Why is anyone else suggestion of how things might be better than any others? Do you think one person’s suggestion is better simply because you were taught to think those are better? how does any evidence of anything “proven” show a lack of the possibility of God?

I could say that, but I don’t state that as the reason.

With blackholes, I actually disagree with many accounts of them.
With electrons, I also disagree with many accounts of them, but agree on the macro process.
Why?
Because I don’t just take their word for it.
I do read and investigate personally.

Hardly.
I think what accurately accounts for what is accounted without introducing more unaccounted variables into the solution as that which makes the most sense.

It doesn’t.
It just doesn’t show a possibility for gods either.

I hold the likelihood of gods right up there with string theory being correct.
Actually, that’s not entirely true.
I hold gods to be just a degree beyond string theory in regards to making sense.

Simple reason really…
What is the description of a god?
What do I look for?

Good too many people don’t

I think i have already pointed to what I would think to look for: How can there be anything greater than that which as a whole is the combination of all things… In which case if it is the everything all you have to do is look at anything to see it…or at least a part of it

Clearly the everything exists, if it is God that is harder to say and would really depend on if it is sentient or not…I proposed that it is most likely that it is…I don’t see why it would be less than 50% likely that it wasn’t, what would you think?

(I know this might seem a little repetitive but after this i think things will Diverge from the previous path…In otherwords i don’t plan on going into the whole things are uncertain thing…I’ll play more with certainty sort arguments)

So how would you propose we discern whether everything in existence is a holistic being with a consciousness?

I wouldn’t say it is easily assertable after recognition of coincidences that fall in line such as to be conducive to odd events…But that is hard for anyone to accept unless they just experience such…
But further i would think that probabilistically it is most likely that a thing thinks if it is of a whole that contains thought, and as a whole must be more complex thereby…as things which recognize themselves as thinking do make up at least a part of it.

but then i thought you already disagreed with this…

And how would we be able to determine if the entire universe has conscious thought unto itself?

What would that conscious thought look like?
What are we looking for as a sign of conscious thought in the universal being?

Wewll coincidences of sorts could be, but then I would say it is hard to determine such, unless say there is a relative frequency of the conincidneces to aid you or do something with regards to your life…Of course there would allways be an alternative explination as for anything it would seem…
I imagine thinking the thought had an appearance itself would be like asking what my thought “looks” like, as far as the physical mass itself, it might appear simply as galaxies and what not to us… that might seem slow for example to us, but relative to perhaps its recognition of the passing of time such would be different…Imagine what say the known universe would look like if it was speed up by 5,000,000,000 times or something, or maybe an infinite amount of time…or just consider all the interaction simply happening on the micro level, beyond our obvious perception of sight…

So there’s no means to verify the neural activity of a thing which is around us at all times.

OK, then what kind of behavior of the movement of the universe does this give us?
Does it predict the nature of how the universe enteracts in some manner, considering we are asserting a function to it that has an executive motive?

It would seem there is really no way of being sure anything thinks, rather than just being some sort of automation…

There would not be a means of arriving at definitive behavior of a thing which you yourself are a part of. in other words any calculation you did would be subject to alteration by that larger set, and thus of a uncertain probability.

It lends to the idea that by some alteration resultant of that thing we came into existence. and it would be imaginable that we came into existence well known if we are fully a part of that thing which has an infinite capacity of recognition. As such it would become evident that many events would have a reason and would be lending to something…although it would be hard to assert what those events were actually lending to…unless you then perhaps realized that they may not be lending to a particular finite result with regards to our perception of what will be but rather some thing beyond any capacity we had to recognize, or be sure of.(in other words we fart and think it smeels bad, it might see a fart and what it results in every living moment afterword, but might at the same time not simply recognize the event of the fart as all events relating to its coming of existence and passing and results…) But then you can begin to question why it is that such a thing might allow certain things to happen like say a religious text, or the idea of there being one God to pervade to the degree it has especially when it is somewhat evident that it could exist and have a hand in such. Which then lends to the idea that there may be some truth of sorts to the texts, and perhaps everything really in so far as having a purpose, and that there may be some level of care it has for us otherwise why would we be thinking of it. and ultimately you could assert that anything with such a capacity to be aware of all that it is and within would be capable of foreseeing all that happened and arranging that things happened in a manner that was best…

It’s rather simple to determine whether neurological function is taking place with executive command.
We do so daily.
I know, you’ll cite certainty again. I don’t care.
For all intents and purposes, we can successfully determine executive capacity in a functioning neural network.

Why should uncertainty stop us at this point versus any other since everything is uncertain to you anyway?
Accepting uncertainty in everything, by what process would we calculate?
What would we be accounting for?

That might help someone that is concerned with such questions.
But what does it offer someone that doesn’t have a problem with good or bad things happening, nor cares about divine purposes?

I would say that there is no way of being certain that neuroligical events, or having what seems to be a brain constitutes thought…but this is not so significant… the question might be why does something have to have what looks like our brains in order to think?

Consider looking at our brains from a perspective such that you perceived them as all the moving atomic structures; protons, neutrons, electrons, and maybe even deeper instances…would that seem vary different then perceiving such as all those galaxies and parts within the known universe on the typical macro scale…it surely would have a difference but this suggests that perception of the thing with respect to certain qualities is a larger decider with respect to recognition of what that thing may be…

There are means of asserting probable reactions of course…as is shown by science…but there isn’t exactly a guarantee that the pattern won’t be changed such as to alter the validity of any predictive behavior we might arrive at…As for now though it would seem the best thing is to open the mind…everything is effectively a coincidence it depends on how you look at it and how far you look back in order to assert the cause…which domino you blame in other words (in a possibly relatively endless stream of dominoes…relative to us at least…)(one person says it is because bob hit the glass with the bar, the other says the glass broke because bars have a high density and capacity to resist alteration of molecular consistency…or something like that) The thing I would look for is just when you personally recognize something as being coincidental, or having an odd number of correlations, the fact that something was recognized as a coincidence by yourself, is often the biggest sign. in other words looking in with respect to what is outside often helps.

Well the books if accurate representations as affected to be by the All…do suggest Heaven and Hell…which it would seem perfectly possible for any “Everything” to self alter such as to allow the existence of…
I would ask do you have the capacity to prevent your mode of thought from being altered such that you do care?
Be that in say a place like Hell, or even on earth…say if certain parts of the brain were altered…

The easiest method I would expect is simple.
A) The universe should not be endlessly growing.
B) The universe should have a neurological form in overall shape.
C) The universe should not be annihilating itself.

B doesn’t appear to be so, but I will easily grant that our imagery of the information may assume the wrong shape just as easily as we first did with Earth.
A, on the other hand, would take far more explaining as to why the entire universe is growing, however, we could posit that a god level brain never stops growing and there really would be no means of verifying this point; so it is useless to aid.
C, on the other hand…if the universe is at some level a brain of a god, then it has a the most plagued amount of tumors and is on course for critical complications to neural processes if any were found.
Brains don’t do well when things inside of them start smashing violently together, or exploding; even on the quark level.

I don’t really accept coincidence.
In my view, there is no such thing.
Just because I don’t believe in gods, why should that mean I immediately think everything is random?

Not all religious texts account for heavens and hells.
And even those that do disagree on what these things are in concept; radically.
The differences are so vast, in fact, that it is somewhat an error to conceptually consider them by the same name to indicate the same form.
For instance, the universe of heaven to Mormons includes becoming gods through multiple layers of heaven, yet only has one layer of hell.
Counter to this, Dante outlines only one layer of Heaven yet accounts for nine layers of hell.

Conversely, Scientology, Hinduism, and some forms of Buddhism account for a re-birthing process.
And in that, Scientology accounts for a means by which Earth is the domain of man without any such concept of Heavens or Hells meanwhile Hinduism and the forms of Buddhism that share Hindu reincarnation concepts essentially aim for oblivion of a sort whereby the reincarnation (unlike Scientology) is considered a thing you don’t want as much as you want to be released from reincarnation.

Then there is Jainism which asserts the perpetual cycle of things until you transcend the gods and become over them in what you require; you do not control the gods, but you are beyond them.

Then there is spiritual Taoism which has you aiming to evaporate into pure forces of nature and ether of sorts.

And then we have standard mainstream Christianity and Judaism, which disagree on Heaven and Hell.
In Christianity, on the protestant side, you just go to heaven or hell; done.
In Orthodoxy, you go to limbo for repentance and (depending on the view) will wait until judgment day (something exclusive to Judeo-Islamic derived religions) before ascending to heaven if you have repented and hell if you have not.
Judaism, on the other hand, has a very ambiguous and unstated account of Heaven where half of Judaism believes in a reincarnated Earth (essentially) as the “heaven” and the other think of it somewhat, but not quite, like the Christian heaven. Very little is discussed on hell other than a place where you basically cease to exist in some form, with possibly some rather terrible punishments just prior to evaporation.

This idea of heaven and hell dichotomy is by no means a universal religious concept.
By and large, most religions do not have such a thing.
That may seem odd to say today because we are so saturated with one branch of religion around the world which popularizes that idea in a mass array of forms, but the truth of the matter is that if you tally up all the world’s religions over time and currently present; the amount of them accounting for a heaven and a hell are quite few by comparison to those that do not.

So if I went by the basis of the mean of religious collective, I would have to say that the texts tell me that there is no such thing as a heaven or hell.

Now, if you mean to refer to only Judeo-Islamic derived traditions…then I don’t care.

If there is a heaven or hell, I’ll deal with that after this life is done.
Right now, I have this life; not that one.
I’m not going to spend this life focusing on some possible next life.
I have better things to give unto my soul here than an emptiness of this world for the next.

Define “violently”…neurotransmitters are constantly running into receptors…I think they can even run into themselves…Te speed at which something is moving depends largely at the rate of perception…and even so as to whether something is violent simply because it interacts quickly, or by a sudden alteration is hard to assert, with regards especially to all particular things.

I wouldn’t say anything is random either…I don’t think i was implying you were…or at least I don’t remember intending to…
My point is is that many people call something a coincidence because they don’t understand what lead to the event… my point is that in that sense everything is a coincidence and as such one might as well say nothing really is…for we don’t really know what lead to anything, we just have an idea of some of the things that lead to it, without exactly knowing what lead to those things…So the point I am pointing out is that it might be a sign when one recognizes that a thing extremely odd happened. like if all the sudden a million bikers fell out of the sky…the acceptable explanation would be that a bunch of bikers were being cariied on some thing being flown through the sky that snapped or something…But then there are really more questions like why did that happen right then…and you can begin to ask why you were witness to that particular event…and then begin to pay attention to how it affected you…how it could…and take further action with regards to those thoughts…If a thing was meant to teach or lead to a specific action it can help to quest as to what so that one can specify the best action to take…of course it is hard to take any of it as certain…it is more of something perhaps worth noteing, that sometimes when noted later lead to a sort of large evidence of sequential odd events that allude to exterior intention…

I meant the books specifically regarding the one God…

Largely I think this is due to trying to represent something that alters with respect to the thing that is needed. Ii.e perhaps rather than saying hot water will be boiled on your heads. one could just say that what you don’t want will happen, that even if you want everything, you will be made not to…

I wounder how many layers of heaven the Mormons account for…would be funny if it was 9.

Your assuming that emptiness is a necessity in order to achieve a good “after-life”…one might call it more fulfilling…especially if one recognizes that the actions requested aren’t merely pointless in order to achieve a better state…but lend overall to a better state for those in the current life, others as well as the self…unfortunately too many are used to specific ways such as to find it hard to alter such as to enjoy doing things in better more universally beneficial ways…And many of the ways suggested are seemingly not so positive unless more openly considered…and then there are of course problems of things like in the Qur’an where it basically OKs a harsh treatment of women and allowance of slaves…but for such things one might ask how could anyone with a good word have it out without having their heads cut off before any other parts of a message might pervade…
As for dealing with it after this life…that is not likely to be possible.

Clearly humans have the capacity for free thinking and action…or so it would seem…and as such it would seem likely that many religious views would come about, besides those that are more in line with the more seeming likely hood of a singular God. And likewise many similar religions may be misuses of those better intended…hard to say…it may not be best to assert with surety that all things would be intended directly by the All or God…or whatever…as it may have been intended that freedom be allowed to at least some degree…

Perhaps what I might should ask is why one would think Heaven or hell, or at least some sort of harshness would not be incurred(that is if you don’t think such would be incurred) if one say lived a wonderful life doing things like what Hitler did and then died before anything bad would happen to them?..One might think that an eternal punishment would not seem fair for a finite action…but then that may be considering that actions actually have dead end results…i would think that anything done has a complete alteration on the entire future…and as such might have an infinite value…but then perhaps an eternal punishment isn’t affixed but rather a short unpleasant one…i don’t claim to really know what heaven or hell will be like other than that it would seem that some may experience good and some bad, of possibly varying degrees…

I tend to think of this; if what happened after my death was not considered relevant by my parents or my deep forefathers, it is highly unlikely that i would have existed…as why then would they have had children or would anything in particular be of a state worth living in…is it not largely thanks to those that wished to fix the future for others beyond their death that provided for what we have now?

Basically sounds like to you, a purpose beyond your own design is something that you need so to make sense of existing.

It would seem there isn’t really much making sense of existing in any way that is of a sureness, or really of any more surety than anything else.
Nonetheleses this does seem more likely to me, of course this is based on my experience…and the Vulcan mind meld isn’t really possible, which may be a good thing.

Although i don’t know that this is exactly a purpose beyond myself as i am still one to choose it…it would seem little different than choosing any other purpose.

So it would seem to me that gods only really serve to provide you with that end.
A singularity solution to the reason for everything.

As would be the provision of any assertion concerning existence including that there was no reason…

True, but a person isn’t required to answer that question.

who doesn’t come to some idea of it?
what else might compel us to ask any question?